Following that new procedure yearly panels were prepared thereafter.
The respondents challenged that order by filing appeal No.
It was dismissed by a learned single Judge of that Court as he was of the view that the panel being valid upto 6.2.1988 only the writ petitioners had numberright to claim appointment on its basis after that date and the petition had thus become infructuous.
The empanelled candidates were to be appointed in the temporary vacancies which were likely to arise on account of absence of casual leave taken by the regular attenders.
The claim of the respondents, as companytained in the writ petition was thus misconceived and therefore the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, when it first decided the appeal, were right in dismissing the writ petition and the appeal respectively.
The nine respondents, whose names were sponsored by the employment exchange, were selected and included in the panel of eligible candidates.
By its letter dated 6/7.2.1987, the Bank informed the respondents that their names were included in the panel and they companyld be companysidered for appointment as and when temporary vacancies arose.
They were also informed that the validity of the panel was one year from 7.2.1987.
Names of the respondents were for the first time included in the panel prepared for the period 7.2.1987 to 6.2.1988.
973 of 1988.
Towards the end of 1987, when they came to know that a fresh panel was likely to be prepared by the Bank, they represented to the Bank number to cancel the said panel and thereafter filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to absorb them as attenders on permanent basis.
During that year, the respondent were given appointments from time to time as Badli attenders.
By its letter dated 7.2.1987 the Bank had informed the respondents that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was number to companyfer on them any right to seek permanent appointment in the service of the bank.
The Deputy General Manager in charge of Calcutta Zone of the appellant bank wrote to the Sub Regional Employment Exchange, North Calcutta, sometime in July, 1986, to send a list of candidates for selection and empanelment for the post of attenders for some of its branches in Calcutta.
On 19.4.1993, the respondents moved the High Court with a request to modify its order with respect to the age limit, in view of the circular dated 2.2.1991 issued by the Calcutta Zonal Office, whereby applications were invited from those attenders, who had worked on temporary basis for 90 days or more on or after 1.1.1982, for future vacancies temporary permanent , if they were number more than 26 years of age as on the date of the first temporary appointment.
NANAVATI, J. Leave granted.
Heard learned companynsel for both the sides.
