The appointment would be governed by the Rules in existence at the time of selection, and the absence of a rule specifying the validity period of the panel for appointment against future vacancy supported the Single Judge's decision.

Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ.

1. State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.2.2006 in Civil Rule No. 875 of 1997. The respondent No. 1 was the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondent No. 2 was respondent No. 4 in the writ petition.

2. In response to a Notification dated 25.4.1997 issued by the Employment Officer, Imphal calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to one post of Junior Lecturer(Sitar) in the State Music College, Imphal, both the respondents submitted their respective applications for appointment to the said post. The DPC was convened on 30.5.1997 to select a candidate for appointment to the said post and recommended for appointment of the present respondent No. 2 to the post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar) in the Government Music College, Imphal. Challenging such selection of the present respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 filed the writ application.

3. In the writ petition, though the present respondent No. 1 had challenged selection of the present respondent No. 2 on several grounds- such as absence of an expert in the Committee, recommendation of the present respondent No. 2 having been made on extraneous consideration etc., the learned Single Judge, on perusal of the relevant records, found that non maintenance of records, work sheet etc. for consideration of relative merit of the candidates by the DPC held on 30.5.1997, is a compelling factor for interference in the selection proceeding. However, having rendered such a finding the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the selection of the present respondent No. 2 for appointment to the post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar) on the ground that such appointment had been offered to her in the year, 1997 and during pendency of the writ petition, by order dt. 28.11.2005 she had also been promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer (Sitar). However, considering the recommendation of the DPC to keep the respondent No. 1 in the panel for appointment to the probable vacant post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar), the learned Single Judge directed that consequent upon promotion of the present respondent No. 2 to the post of Senior Lecturer (Sitar), the vacancy created by her in the post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar) be filled up by appointing the present respondent No. 1.

4. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed solely on the ground that the vacancy created due to promotion of the present respondent No. 2 to the post of Senior Lecturer (Sitar), could only be filled up by way of fresh recruitment and the learned Single Judge could not have directed for appointing present respondent No. 1 against the said post merely because she had also been recommended in 1997 to be kept in wait list.

5. Mr. Y. Ayang, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that normally a wait list is kept alive for a period of one year and by the time writ petition was disposed of in 2006, almost 9(nine) years had elapsed from the date the DPC recommended to keep the present respondent No. 1 in the wait list. Therefore, the learned Single Judge could not have directed to fill up the said post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar) by appointing the present respondent No. 1. It was further submitted that there was an amendment to the Rules in the recruitment to the post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar) prior to availability of the vacancy on promotion of the present respondent No. 2 to the post of Senior Lecturer (Sitar). Under the amended Rules, the present respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be appointed to the said post and therefore the direction of the learned Single Judge to appoint the present respondent No. 1 is not in accordance with law.

6. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the appointment of the present respondent No. 1 would be governed by the Rules that were in existence at the time of selection and she would