S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.) In this application the petitioners have, inter alia prayed for a writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to act in terms of the panel as contained in annexure 'B' to the writ application. It is not disputed that the panel was prepared on 9.11.93. The petitioners further in paragraph 9 of the writ application have stated that the said panel has been prepared by the Port Authorities on 9th November, 1993 and the life span of the panel is one year. The petitioners further stated that the lift span of the said panel will expire on 8th November, 1994.
(2.) Although by an order dated 8th November, 1994, an interim order has been passed restraining the respondents from giving any appointment without leave of this court, keeping in view the admitted position that the life of the panel has since expired, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
(3.) In Madan Lal and Others v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others reported in 1995(2) SLR 209, the Supreme Court observed upon taking into consideration an earlier decision reported in 1993(2) SCC 573, that the appointment depends upon the availability of the vacancies. The list remains valid for one year from the date of its approval and date of publication and if within such one year any of the candidates therein is not appointed, the list lapses and a fresh list has to be prepared. To the same effect there is another judgment of apex court in Dr, Uma Kant v. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain and Others reported in 1991(5) SLR 624. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further placed before this Court an unreported judgment of Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J., dated 2.7.90 passed in C.R. 13124 (W) of 89, wherein without assigning any reason it has been stated that unless panel is exhausted, all vacancies will be filled up taking the candidates from all the aforesaid categories, numbers being determined on the basis of available vacancies. Apart from the fact that in that case question of lapse of panel by efflux of time did not arises for consideration. This aspect of the matter has been decided a Division Bench of this court in a decision reported in 1991(1) CLJ 479 has held that the life of the panel is 18 months. Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel, further has relied upon a decision reported in 1997(2) CLJ 105. In that decision also a mere observation has been made that there was no justification of ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The fact of that case cannot be held to be applicable in the instant case.;