The court emphasized the obligation of the government to justify abandoning an approved panel and the significance of the delay in filing a writ application in determining the rights of the candidates.

I.P. MUKERJI, J.

This writ was preferred by four aspirants (respondent nos. 1 to 4) for the post of “Anganwadi Workers” within Dinhata-I ICDS project, District-Cooch Behar. Their alleged right is founded on a panel of candidates for such work prepared on or about 3rd December, 2007 initially valid for two years upto 1st October, 2009. Thereafter it was extended till 1st October, 2010. The said four respondents/writ petitioners are included in that panel. Their grievance is that although the panel was prepared, it was not acted upon. They were not appointed.

2. The Hon'ble 1st Court noted that on 2nd June, 2010 the government directed the appellants to complete the recruitment process of “Anganwadi Workers” or “Anganwadi Helpers” within four weeks from the said date.

3. On 8th July, 2010 the Child Development Project Officer, Dinhata-I issued a notice inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the vacancies for the self same posts. After four years, in 2014 the instant writ was filed by the said respondents/writ petitioners praying for inter alia the following reliefs.

“(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and their men, agents, and servants particularly the Child Development Project Officer, Dinhata ICDS Projects within the District of Cooch Behar being the respondent No. 8 herein to recall and/or rescind and/or cancel the advertisement dated 8th July, 2010 under Memo No. 215.ICDS/D.T.A-1 issued by the aforesaid respondent for filling up the vacancies to the post of Anganwadi Workers in different gram panchayat under Dinhata-I Development Block and also municipal area of Dinhata Municipality.”

“(c) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents particularly the Child Development Project Officer, Dinhata-I ICDS Project Dinhata, Cooch Behar to issue appointment letters to the post of Anganwadi Workers from the panel in favour of the petitioners on the basis of memorandums dated 7th August, 2009 under Memo No. 5672 (2)-Sw/3S-04/09, dated 11th September, 2009/19th September, 2009 under Memo No. 4656-Sw/3S-86/2009 and also dated 2nd June, 2010 under Memo No. 2404-Sw/2M-106 (Pt-II) issued by the Officer-on-Special Duty and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, Department of Women and child Development and Social Welfare, Government of West Bengal, Writers' Building, Kolkata being the respondent No. 3 herein.”

4. There is no explanation whatsoever for this delay of four years.

5. It is said that the said panel of 2010 was prepared during the validity period of the 2007 panel which consisted of 281 candidates.

6. The selection process of 2007 was abandoned. On the basis of the selection process started in 2010, the added respondents were selected in 2012.

7. The Hon'ble first court remarked that there were no materials produced before it why during the validity period of the panel of 2007, it was discarded and a fresh recruitment process started. The notice dated 8th July, 2010 starting the recruitment process was quashed. The writ application was disposed of at the court application stage.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants said that no opportunity was given to them to file an affidavit in opposition to the writ petition to show why the 2007 panel was not acted upon. Without an affidavit, the court on the basis of absence of oral instructions with the state counsel came to the conclusion that the appellants had no materials to justify why the panel was not acted upon. There was no justification for quashing the recruitment process begun in 2010. It was also submitted on its behalf that there was a long period of delay by the said four respondents in preferring the writ application.

9. Now, I come to my findings.

10. The 2007 panel was duly approved by the competent authority. The empanelled candidates had no doubt a legitimate expectation of being appointed against these existing vacancies, during the life of the panel.

11. Nonetheless, it is settled law that empanelment does not confer an