(1.) :- The present appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 10.9.94 in Civil Order No. 10024 of 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
(2.) The name of the present appellant having been sponsored by the employment exchange, he appeared in the written examination and interview and he was empanelled for appointment in the "General Category" in the respondent Company. In the panel the position of the appellant was eighth. In three stages seven appointments were given from the said panel as per ranks of the candidates. First four candidates were given appointment in between the period 10th Dec., 1997 and 12th Jan., 1988. Thereafter two vcancies were filled up by fifth and sixth candidates on 14th April, 1989 and 18th April, 1989 respectively. The next seventh vacancy was filled up on 20th March, 1991 from the said panel. Since the case of the present appellant was not considered for appointment he preferred a writ application before this court. The writ application having been dismissed the appellant preferred the appeal.
(3.) The learned Advocate of the appellant submits that selection must be based on the basis of the panel of successful candidates prepared with a view to fill up the specified number of vacancies. In the present case panel was prepared in 1988 and there was no existing service rule of the respondent Corporation regarding the period of validity of the panel. In absence of any such specific rule the respondent Corporation cannot treat the said panel as cancelled. After the appointment of four candidates the respondents went on giving appointments to other three candidates which indicates that the panel was operative and was cotinuing.