Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.
1. West Bengal Minor Irrigation Corporation Limited is a wholly undertaking of the State. The said Corporation is under deep and pervasive control of the State. 12 vacancies were sanctioned by the State. The Corporation prepared a panel in 1990 after holding a regular recruitment process. The respondent No. 1 before us was placed at Serial No. 12 in the said panel. The life of the panel expired after one year. No appointment was given from the said panel. The first empanelled candidate filed a writ petition in 1995. The learned Single Judge vide order dated April 13, 1995 directed appointment to be given to him. This order was passed upon hearing the rival contentions of the parties. Some of the panelists including serial No. 15 filed another writ petition and went before another learned Single Judge who, however, passed an order on April 27, 1995 directing the respondents to consider their cases for appointment. The Corporation filed an appeal against the first order and not against the second order. However, before the appeal could be heard and disposed they gave appointment to Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 15 on October 11, 1995.
2. The Division Bench heard the appeal in respect of the first writ petition.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation made a voluntary statement before the Court of Appeal that irrespective of the decision in the appeal they decided not to take back the employments given to the panelists as recorded above. They, however, proceeded with the appeal to prevent future complications.
4. The Division Bench set aside the said panel after observing that the life of the panel had expired after one year. The Division Bench also observed that after expiry of the panel no person could be appointed from the said panel.
5. Upon coming to know of the fact that the 15th empanelled candidate had been given employment the respondent No. 1 before us, being the 12th empanelled candidate, filed the third writ petition. The petition was moved upon notice to the respondents being the State as well as the Corporation. Nobody appeared before His Lordship on behalf of the respondents.
6. His Lordship disposed of the writ petition by judgment and order dated December 22, 1995. His Lordship directed consideration of the case of the writ petitioner in the light of the fact that persons empanelled in serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 15 had already been given employment.
7. An application for recall was moved by the Corporation.
8. His Lordship by judgment and order dated March 1, 1996 dismissed the application for recall. Before His Lordship the applicant contended that since the panel had lapsed they were not in a position to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner. His Lordship after recording the facts narrated above, observed that, when the 15th empanelled candidate was given employment without any specific direction of the Court in that regard there was no reason why the 12th panelist could be ignored.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of His Lordship passed on December 22, 1995 as well as March 1, 1996, the State as well as the Corporation filed respective appeals which are heard by us.
10. Mr. Pabitra Kumar Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the State in support of his appeal contends that appointment was given to the 15th panelist under a threat of contempt. Mr. Basu, learned Advocate further contends that assuming it was done wrongly, such wrong and/or illegality could not be asked to be repeated in the case of 12th panelist. In support of his contention Mr. Basu has relied upon three Apex Court decisions in the case of State of M.P. and Ors. v. Shyama Pardhi reported in : AIR1996SC2219 , in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Raj Kumar Sharma and Ors. reported in : (2006)3SCC330 and in the case of National Council for Teacher Education and Anr. v. Committee of Management and Ors. reported in : AIR2006SC1415 .
11. Mr. S.P. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal of the Corporation while adopting the argument made by Mr. Basu, adds that the learned Single Judge should not have ignored the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Manoranjan Mondal, being the first empanelled candidate reported in 1996(1) CLJ page 425.
12. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate further contends that the corporation had to give employment to the 15th panelist after obtaining necessary permission from the Finance Department under the threat of contempt. He, however, could have not give any plausible explanation as to why the 15th panelist could be given employment when there was no such specific direction from the Court.
13. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. We have also perused the relevant orders passed from time to time by this Court referred to supra.
14. In the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Raj Kumar Sharma and Ors. (supra) U.P. Public Service Commission prepared a common list for different vacancies in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Before the said list could be implemented State of Uttartranchal came into being. The Public Service Commission segregated the list and sent the list meant for hilly areas which were later on transferred to the State of Uttaranchal for consideration of their employment in Uttaranchal. Uttaranchal refused to give employment because of various complications. The matter went up to the Apex Court. The Apex Court upheld the decision of the Government. While doing so, the Apex Court observed that State of Uttar Pradesh might consider the cases of the panelists for giving appropriate employments. There was no specific direction for giving employment to those panelists. The panelists then moved the State of Uttar Pradesh for employment. State refused on the ground that all the vacancies in the said State had duly been filled up. The matter went to the High Court. Ultimately some of the panelists were accommodated in subsequent vacancies in different departments of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Others approach the Court. The Apex Court ultimately held that since the State did not have any vacancy there could not be any direction from the Court to accommodate them in any other vacancy. Apex Court observed that assuming subsequent vacancies were filled up from the said panel, such illegality could not be allowed to continue in case of others.
15. Following the decisions of the Apex Court referred to supra, we are of the view that learned Single Judge should not have directed consideration of the case of the 12th panelist as the result was inhabitable in the given facts and circumstances. The 12th panelist, being the respondent No. 1, was not entitled to be considered as the panel had lapsed long ago.
16. Before parting with, we would be failing in our duty if we do not highlight the illegalities committed by the State repeatedly. On analysis of the orders passed from time to time, we find that the learned Single Judge gave specific direction for giving appointment only in case of the first panelist. In the second writ petition there was no such direction from the learned Single Judge. We tried in vain to find out a plausible reason how the 15lh panelist could be considered for employment. We are not hesitant to say that the State committed illegality in giving appointment to the 15th panelist. We are however, not concerned about the other panelists in the present appeals. When the matter went to the Division Bench the Corporation made voluntary statement that whatever might be the result of the appeal they would not take back the employment given to those persons including the 15lh panelist. This is not only an illegal act on the part of the State and the Corporation but also is a glaring example of discrimination for obvious reasons.
17. We, however, do not wish to ask the State of commit another illegality by directing the consideration of the 12th panelist.
18. Learned Single Judge imposed cost of Rs. 10,000/- as against the Corporation. We do not wish to interfere on that score. In addition we wish to impose further cost on the State and the Corporation for the miseries suffered by the respondent No. 1 for no fault of him.
19. The orders under appeal are set aside to the extent of consideration of the respondent No. 1 for employment. The order under appeal imposing cost on the Corporation is affirmed.
20. The State as well as the Corporation would pay Rs. 5,000/- each to the respondent No. 1 as assessed cost as above. The State as well as the Corporation are, however, given liberty to recover the above sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the erring officials after fixing up responsibility.
21. Urgent xerox certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
Tapas Kumar Giri, J.
I agree.