JUDGMENT

Ahmadi, CJI.-Special leave granted.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, issued an advertisement on 7.8.1988 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers. The respondents applied in response thereto. They were interviewed by a Selection Committee some time in July, 1989 and thereafter a panel of 273 persons including the respondents came to be prepared by the said Selection Committee on 19.1.1991. Out of the candidates so selected, the Director approved the names of 98 persons for appointment on 30.1.1991 and hence the remaining candidates remained on the panel described as the waiting list. Out of 98 candidates so appointed, 47 belonged to the general category, 43 to the Scheduled Tribes category, 6 to the Scheduled Castes category and 2 to the handicapped category. Out of 98 persons, only 91 joined. The panel for the remaining candidates was prepared on 26.8.1991, which was described as the revised waiting list. Some of the candidates, who were not appointed, moved the High Court by way of writ petition on 20.1.1992. By an interim order of the High Court, the panel was not allowed to lapse.

3. The Government Basic School, Assistant Teachers Service Encadrement, Appointment and Transfer Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called the Rules ) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution provides that every teacher will be appointed on probation for two years. It further provides that the list of candidates prepared for direct appointments will be valid for one year from the date of approval of the project by the Selection Committee. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, is that the High Court s order to continue the list beyond one year runs counter to rules framed in exercise of Constitutional powers under Article 309 of the Constitution and hence the same cannot be allowed to stand. He had further pointed out from the decisions of this Court that a candidate placed on the waiting list has no right to appointment and that in any case the waiting list cannot be a list which would enure indefinitely till every candidate on the list is appointed. According to him under the provisions of clause (6) of Rule 5, the list of candidates prepared could enure for one year only from the date of approval of the projet by the Selection Committee and on the expiry of that period, which in the instant case expired two days before the writ petition was filed, the list would stand exhausted. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that there were in all 160 vacancies when the advertisement was issued and selections were made and, therefore, at least that number of candidates should have been appointed after the conclusion of the selection. He urged that although a person on a waiting list may not have a legal right to appointment, the Department cannot arbitrarily refuse to make appointments from the panel prepared for that purpose after raising legitimate expectations. Our attention was drawn to certain correspondence exchanged in this behalf to which it is not necessary to refer as the fact that there were 160 vacancies is not disputed. The question then is whether after going through the process of selecting candidates what was the reason for the Government to refuse appointments to selected candidates at least to the extent of 160 vacancies ? The High Court points out in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment that against 160 vacancies only 98 persons were given appointments out of them 91 reported for duty and the rest were denied appointment for no valid reason whatsoever.

4. It was next contended by counsel for the appellant that the High Court had entertained the petition after one year i.e. after the list had lapsed, on the erroneous assumption that the respondents had moved the petition before the expiry of one year. According to him the panel of 173 candidates was prepared on 19.1.1991 and hence its life came to an end on the expiry of one year on 18