The limitation period incorporated in Rule 3e of the Notification, dated 8th February, 1974, issued by the Primary of the Education Department of the Government of West Bengal, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is struck down.

( 1 ) THE petitioners pursuant to an advertisement applied for the post of Teachers in different Primary Schools in urban area in the district of 24-Parganas and they were duly selected for the interview. The petitioners appeared before the Interview Board and empanelled in 1981 as qualified candidates for the Primary School Teachers in Serial Nos. 26, 6, 84 and 36 respectively. Since then the selected candidates were absorbed in the post of the Teachers only not serially from the panel but even from outside the panel. The petitioners came to know in July 1986 that fresh recruitment for the post of Primary Teachers through different Employment Exchanges in the urban area within the district is going to be made. The case of the petitioners is that the preparation of the new panel amounts to virtual cancellation of old panel of 1981 to the prejudice of the petitioners. The writ petitioners had referred to a judgment delivered by me on 12th August, 1987 in C. O. No, 12112 (W) of 1986 (Arun Kumar Chowdhury and Ors. vs. Secretary, Ministry of Education (Primary) and Ors.) wherein some petitioners who were empanelled in the panel of 1981 moved the writ petition and I directed the State respondents to give appointment of the Primary School Teachers to the writ petitioners according to the vacancy occurring in the district until all the writ petitioners were absorbed from the existing panel of 1981. The State was further given liberty to prepare a new panel for future appointment.

( 2 ) FROM the perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that in C. O. No. 12112 (W) of 1986 referred to in the writ application neither any Affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the State nor the learned State Advocate could render any assistance to the Court and the matter virtually went ex parte. Here I have the assistance of the State Advocate and also Affidavit-in-opposition as well as a supplementary Affidavit by the State before me. In this particular writ application the specific case of the State is that the writ petitioners were called for interview for the preparation of panel of the Primary Teachers for the urban area of Bhatpara Municipality and not for the entire urban area of the district of 24-Parganas. The State relies upon the Notification, dated 8th February, 1974 which is the amendment to the certain Rules of the Notification, dated 25th July, 1940. The relevant amended Rule 3e is quoted as under: - "a panel of teachers for a district shall remain valid, unless exhausted earlier, for 12 months from the date of its preparation, but the State Government may extend the period of validity of a panel by a period not exceeding six months. When a panel is exhausted or ceased to be valied the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal, shall proceed to prepare a fresh panel in accordance to the provisions of these rules. " It is also the specific case of the State that the petitioner No. 1 secured 26th position in General Trained Category and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 secured 6th and 82nd position, respectively, in the panel of the General Untrained Categories for the urban area of Bhatpara Municipality but the petitioner No. 4 failed to secure any position in the panel under any category. The learned Advocate for the State has also produced the records in support of its contention. Another defence taken by the State is that the panel prepared in 1981 has been challenged after lapse of 7 years when already the life of the panel has been exhausted and, as such, on the ground of delay the application should also not be entertained.

( 3 ) DURING the course of argument Mr. Chowdhury, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the Interview Letter was issued for the entire district of 24-Parganas and not for any Particular Municipality or urban area and produced a Letter of Interview as well which prima facie appears to be for the district concerned and not for any particular area. He