Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) All the four matters similarly placed are dealt with analogously for the purpose of consideration of appointments Urdu and Hindi Teacher from the panel/select list in Calcutta (Kolkata) Municipal Corporation by this Court. The dispute hereunder is that even after making the penal by the Calcutta (Kolkata) Municipal Corporation from the selected candidates and even after giving appointment from the list and even more than the number the panel period expired. The cases of the petitioners have not yet been considered. However, it has been frankly confessed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is no case of jumping the queues in the panel.
(2.) Mr. P.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before this Court on the basis of the judgment delivered in 1997 (II) CHN 435 (Sri Deb Narayan Chatterjee & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors.) that a panel is deemed to be kept alive when any one is given appointment after expiry of the panel. I have come to know from Mr. L.C. Behani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation that the panel period was exhausted in the year 2001. However, I find that the writ petition was made in the year 2000. However, Mr. Behani, relied upon judgment reported in AIR 1994 SC 765 where under it has been held: if the select list has been kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up other vacancies also that would naturally amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates would have become eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and selection process. He contended that in effect a panel cannot continue for ever. He cited an unreported judgment of a single judge dated 17th January, 2002 in WP No. 3222 of 2000 in Re: Pinaki Bhattacharyya alongwith other matters where it has been held that after expiry of panel only option open to the Corporation to return the names of such persons to Employment Exchange stating that the panel has elapsed and there is no possibility of getting any appointment in the establishment on the basis of the sponsorship, so that their names may be forwarded for the purpose of appropriate appointment elsewhere by the Employment Exchange upon restoring their names in the seniority position.
(3.) According to me an order of a Single Judge has no binding effect over another Single Judge but of course it has a persuasive value provided the Court in seisin of the matter is pursuaded by the explanation. But if I accept such explanation it will be clear deprivation of the candidates who are already selected and it will be too harsh for selectee as against their hopes and trust for getting appointment. It is also to be noted that they will be over aged for such appointment by the passage of time.;