(1) IN the year 1982-83, Delhi Administration notified 654 vacancies of trained graduate teachers and asked the Employment Exchange to sponsor names of suitable candidates for appointment. The Employment Exchange during the period up to June 1984 sponsored as many as 4000 candidates. The Staff Selection Board headed by the Director/Additional Director of Education, Delhi Administration after interviewing the can- didates prepared panels containing an aggregate of 1492 names of selected candidates. The panels were displayed on the notice board stal- ing specifically that "the appointment will be in the order of merit, that appointment will be made from the select list till the last candidate is appointed". It was also stated in the minutes of the meetings of the Staff Selection Board that "the life of the panels of selected candidates will be valid for indefinite period". In some minutes it is stated, that "the panel of selected candidates will remain valid till all the candidates are offered appointments".

(2) DELHI Administration in the first instance appointed 527 candi- dates out of the selected panels and later on they appointed 127 more candidates. It is said that some more candidates were also appointed dur- ing the pendency of this proceedings. The remaining selected candidates waited in vain only to see an advertisement by the Administration invit- ing fresh candidates for further appointments. At that stage, they moved the High court with writ petition under Article 226, inter alia, contend- ing that they have a right to be appointed till the panels are exhausted. The writ petition stood transferred to the central Administrative Tribunal which upon consideration of the matter allowed the claim of selected candidates with the following directions:

"THE petition is allowed and the letter No. F.20-3(a)/85-Coord dated 5/03/1985 issued by the Directorate of Education insofar as it restricts the operation of panels of selected candidates to the extent of the actual notified vacancies as is hereby quashed with the direction that all the candidates included in the panels of selected candidates prepared till June 1984 for the posts of Trained Gradu- ate Teachers, shall be appointed against the existing or future vacan- cies and that the persons in the said panels shall have precedence in appointment over persons included in any subsequent panel and not _õo far appointed and further that no fresh panel for the appointment on the posts of trained Graduate Teachers in the categories covered by the said panels, shall be prepared until the said panels are exhausted and offers for appointment have been made to all persons included in the said panels."

(3) IT is against this order of the tribunal, Delhi Administration by obtaining leave has appealed to this court.

(4) MR Subba Rao for the appellant urged that the candidates included in the panels prepared by the Selection Board as far back in June 1984 cannot be held to have the right to appointment against vacancies arising subsequent to preparation of the panels. According to counsel, if that right is conceded it would be arbitrary and contrary to Article 16(1) of the Constitution which guarantees opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State. There is little doubt about this proposition. The selected can- didates ordinarily will have a right to appointment against vacancies notified or available till the select list is prepared. They in any event can-not have a right against future vacancies,

(5) BUT in the present case, it cannot be said that the anticipated vacancies arising up to the preparation of panels were not taken into consideration by the Selection Board while preparing the panels for recruitment. The Tribunal after examining the entire matter has con- cluded that the Selection Board headed by the Director of Education or the Additional Director on a few occasions was aware of t