Appointments made after the expiry of a panel are illegal, and the court cannot direct the appointment of teachers from an expired panel as it would violate the law and be illegal.

( 1 ) - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6. 6. 90 and order dated 7. 1. 97 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners was allowed and the same benefit has been extended to the added respondents and has also been directed to give appointment to the writ petitioners and the added respondents. The admitted fact of the matter is that a panel was prepared in the year 1981. The writ petitioners and the added respondents are said to have been empanelled as no appointment was given to them from the said panel for a long time. They filed a writ petition in the year 1988 praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs:- (A)a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commending the respondents and their men and agents to forbear from giving any or further effect to the purported order as memo No. 17 Edn. (P)/55-5-85 dated 10. 1. 1985 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and Memo No. 23 (120)/p. E. dated 1. 2. 85 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (P. E.) 24-Parganas inviting the names of the candidates from different employment exchanges for recruitment of Primary School Teachers in different schools in the Urban areas within the District 24-Parganas. (B)a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature thereof directing the respondents to forbear from cancelling or withholding the panel as was duly prepared in the year 1981 wherein your petitioners have been selected as eligible candidates for being absorbed to the posts of primary school teachers so long as the petitioners are not appointed as teachers and so long as the existing panel is not exhausted and also commanding the respondents to fill up all the vacancies by observing the persons in the panel within a reasonable time. (C)writ of Certiorari commanding the respondents to certify and to transmit all the relevant papers and records in connection with the impugned memo/order No. 17 Edn (p) 55-5-85 dated 10. 1. 1985 issued by the Respondents No. 1 and Memo No. 23 (120)/p. E. dated 1. 2. 85 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (P. E.) 24- Parganas and relating to Memo No. 384 (15000)/p. E. dated 9. 12. 80 issued by Respondents No. 2 to this Hon'ble Court within such time as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper so that conscionable justice may be done by commanding the respondents to cancel, rescind, withdraw and quash the impugned orders.

( 2 ) THE learned Judge by a judgment and order dated 6. 6. 90 upon following a decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Asoka Roy and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors, reported in Calcutta Law Times 1989 (2) HC 139 held that the petitioners should be appointed. In Asoka Roy's case it was directed as follows:"in my view it is sheer that those candidates who have been empanelled in 1981 should deprived of the opportunity of having an employment within a course of one year or maximum one-and-a-half year for no fault of theirs and a fresh panel would be prepared. There is no dispute of the fact this panel was prepared in 1981 and the steps for preparation of a fresh panel were taken only in 1985 after a lapse of four years. This itself indicates that the respondents themselves kept the panel alive for pretty longer than one-and-a-half years in utter violation of the said Rule 3e and thought of fresh panel only in 1985. Further by their own act of giving appointment in 1988 to Bhaskar Goon, a candidate of 1981 panel, the submission of the State that the panel exhausted in force by virtue of Rule 3e has no force at all. For the ends of justice it is necessary to strike down the limitation of 12 months and further extension of 6 months from the amended Rule 3e of the Notification dated 8th February, 1974 when the State itself is not following the time-limit prescribed in the said Rule and whimsically giving appointments on pick and choose basis from the old panel of 1981 much beyond its life and which according to the State Authorities themselves is no more valid. Even ca