N. P. Singh, N. Pandey, JJ.

1. Let the intervenors be added as party-respondents. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for directing the respondents to invite applications for preparation of panel for appointments against the vacant posts of Assistant Professors in the different departments of the Medical Colleges in the State of Bihar.

2. The main grievance, which was made on behalf of the petitioners, is that the respondent-State is making appointments against the teaching posts from the panel prepared on the basis of advertisement issued in the month of december, 1987, jeopardising the interests of these petitioners, who have now become eligible for being considered for appointments against the posts of assistant Professors.

3. During hearing of this application and other writ applications it has come to our notice that there is virtually a tug of war amongst different candidates, who became eligible for different teaching posts on different dates. The persons, who became eligible later, are anxious to delay the preparation of the panel, whereas the persons, whose name have been included in the panel, have been taking all steps including by filing writ applications in this court for direction that appointments be made out of the panel prepared, in some cases even four to five years earlier.

4. The normal rule is that applications should be invited every year for preparation of a panel and appointments should be made in respect of vacancies occurring within one year from the date of notification of the panel till which date the panel remains valid. But it was pointed out that due to many factors including on the basis of interim orders passed by this Court on applications filed on behalf of persons aggrieved, in past there has been delay in preparation of panel and appointments have been made out of panel in respect of vacancies occurring after four to five years of the notification of the panel.

5. In the case of State of U. P. and another V/s. Ram Gopal Shukla, (AIR 1981 Supreme Court, 1041) the Supreme Court has held that even a statutory rule under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot provide to make appointment from a panel which has become stale, because any such rule shall be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

6. By our order dated 29/1/1990, we directed Mr. S. N. Jha, learned Standing Counsel No.1, to discuss the issues aforesaid with the higher authorities of the Department of Health and as to why this Court should not direct to follow a schedule in respect of inviting applications from the eligible candidates for being appointed against different vacant teaching posts and to prepare the panel on the basis of applications so received and to make appointments according to the schedule so that no person should make a grievance either on the ground that the appointments are being made from a panel, which has become state or on the ground that applications are not being invited for years although several persons having better merit have become eligible, but are not being considered for appointments against such teaching posts, which are lying vacant.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In that counter affidavit it has been stated that the State Government had already taken a decision in the year 1988 to prepare a panel for Junior teaching posts every year. It has been further stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 29-1-1990, passed by this Court, the question regarding fixing a time schedule for preparation of panel every year, for making appointments against the teaching posts in the different Medical Colleges of the State was considered by the Department. About the schedule it has been said in that counter affidavit as follows :

"6. That the State Government has no objection in following the time schedule as indicated in the order dated 29-1-90 for preparing the panel. The State Government agrees to invited applications