JUDGMENT

Nanavati, J.-Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

2. The Deputy General Manager in charge of Calcutta Zone of the appellant bank wrote to the Sub-Regional Employment Exchange, North Calcutta, sometime in July, 1986, to send a list of candidates for selection and empanelment for the post of attenders for some of its branches in Calcutta. The empanelled candidates were to be appointed in the temporary vacancies which were likely to arise on account of absence of or casual leave taken by the regular attenders. The nine respondents, whose names were sponsored by the employment exchange, were selected and included in the panel of eligible candidates. By its letter dated 6/7.2.1987, the Bank informed the respondents that their names were included in the panel and they could be considered for appointment as and when temporary vacancies arose. They were also informed that the validity of the panel was one year from 7.2.1987. During that year, the respondents were given appointments from time to time as Badli attenders. Towards the end of 1987, when they came to know that a fresh panel was likely to be prepared by the Bank, they represented to the Bank not to cancel the said panel and thereafter filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to absorb them as attenders on permanent basis. It was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Court as he was of the view that the panel being valid upto 6.2.1988 only the writ petitioners had no right to claim appointment on its basis after that date and the petition had thus become infructuous.

3. The respondents challenged that order by filing appeal No. 973 of 1988. The Division Bench of the High Court did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed it on 30.3.1993, with a direction to the Bank to consider their cases for empanelment and consequent appointment, if there were vacancies and they were found eligible and within age limit.

4. On 19.4.1993, the respondents moved the High Court with a request to modify its order with respect to the age limit, in view of the circular dated 2.2.1991 issued by the Calcutta Zonal Office, whereby applications were invited from those attenders, who had worked on temporary basis for 90 days or more on or after 1.1.1982, for future vacancies (temporary/permanent), if they were not more than 26 years of age as on the date of the first temporary appointment. In view of this circular the High Court thought it proper to recall its previous order and rehear the appeal. It was disposed of on 21.12.1993 by passing the following order :-

"Accordingly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the appeal by directing the bank that while making the fresh panel the case of the appellants should be taken into consideration first. They should be placed in the penal and while doing that, the question of age bar will not disqualify them, and that their case may be sympathetically considered for employment and/or appointment. We also make it clear that this order passed by us will not affect the terms and conditions of any existing employees or their future chance of promotion, if there was any ratio reserved for promotional quota for any of the existing staffs. While making the panel suitable priority should be given for empanelment and consequential appointment into the post taking into consideration of their past services over the new hands. Steps should be taken to make empanelment as soon as the vacancy arises."

5. It was contended by Mr. Deepankar Gupta, learned counsel for the Bank that as the High Court had thought it fit to recall its order and re-hear the appeal on the basis of the circular dated 2.2.1991, it was neither proper nor just to dispose of the appeal by giving directions which are inconsistent with the said circular. He also submitted that as the life of the panel, on the basis of which the respondents had claimed the right to be absorbed permanently,