ALI HOSSAIN MANDAL & ORS. versus WEST BENGAL BOARD OF PRIMARY EDUCATION & ORS.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 935, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 935 : 2024 INSC 453
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. 
v. 
West Bengal Board of Primary Education & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1873 of 2024)
09 May 2024
[Hrishikesh Roy* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the manner of shortlisting candidates for appointment to 
the posts of primary teacher as directed by the Division Bench was 
in departure from the procedure envisaged under Rule 8 of the 
West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016; 
whether the remaining 3929 vacancies of primary school teachers 
were to be treated exclusively as part of 16,500 vacancies for 
which the recruitment process commenced via Notification dated 
23.12.2020, or whether such vacancies can be carried forward 
to the next recruitment cycle that commenced via Notification 
dated 29.09.2022 instead.
Headnotes†
West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 
2016 – rr.8, 12 – Procedure for selection of candidates – No 
vested right to be appointed against notified vacancies – 
Division Bench vide impugned judgment directed that 
appointments against the unfilled 3929 vacancies be made 
in a descending order of candidates’ respective inter-se 
positions in Teacher Eligibility Test List 2014 – Aforesaid 
3929 vacancies if to be treated exclusively as a part of the 
recruitment process initiated through Notification dated 
23.12.2020 and appointments against them if to be made 
from the already-expired panel or Merit List notified on
15.02.2021:
Held: No – The selection process for appointment to the posts of 
primary teacher was to be made by assessment of merit by the 
Selection Committee as notified under Rule 8 of the Recruitment 
Rules, 2016 – The recruitment process initiated on 23.12.2020 
cannot continue indefinitely – The 2020 recruitment process 
had concluded and thereafter, the fresh recruitment process
936
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
commenced vide notification dated 29.09.2022 – The Panel or 
Merit List as notified on 15.02.2021 stood extinguished after expiry 
of one year on 15.02.2022, as per Rule 12 of the Recruitment 
Rules, 2016 as no extension was granted to the 15.02.2021 
Panel by any competent authority and therefore no relief can be 
granted to candidates who approached the court in May 2022, 
i.e., long after the panel stood extinguished – Not appropriate 
to direct appointments to be made against the remaining 3929 
vacancies, from the already-expired Merit List – A panel or a 
Merit List cannot be treated as if it exists in perpetuity, which will 
facilitate making appointments as and when required – When 
the panel expires or after the selection process is over with most 
posts being filled, the benefit of appointments cannot be given 
unless the panel’s validity is legally extended – However, no such 
extension of the panel’s validity was granted – In conclusion of 
the earlier process, a fresh recruitment process was undertaken 
vide Notification dated 29.09.2022 – Furthermore, even when 
vacancies are notified and an adequate number of candidates 
are shortlisted, these candidates do not acquire an indefeasible 
right to be appointed against those vacancies – Multiple factors 
are to be taken into account by the Board – For such reasons 
3929 vacancies remained unfilled by the time the panel’s 
validity expired – No further appointments
permissible from 
the recruitment process initiated on 23.12.2020 when a fresh 
recruitment process had commenced – Impugned judgment of 
the Division Bench and the earlier direction given by the Single 
Judge, set aside. [Paras 25-27, 29, 30]
Case Law Cited
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. [2010] 7 SCR 
301 : (2010) 6 SCC 777; Union of India v. B. Valluvan [2006] 
Supp. 7 SCR 755 : (2006) 8 SCC 686; Girdhar Kumar Dadhich 
v. State of Rajasthan [2009] 1 SCR 585 : (2009) 2 SCC 706; 
State of Bihar v. Mohd. Kalimuddin [1996] 1 SCR 314 : (1996) 
2 SCC 7 – relied on.
Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railway & 
Ors. [2018] 14 SCR 947 : (2019) 12 SCC 798 – distinguished. 
List of Acts
West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
937
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of 
Primary Education & Ors.
List of Keywords
Primary school teachers; Teacher Eligibility Test 2014; TET 1014; 
Remaining/balance/unfilled vacancies/left over vacancies; Cutoff 
marks; Panel or Merit List; Next recruitment cycle; Fresh recruitment 
cycle; Vacancies not carried forward; Shortlisted candidates; 
Recruitment process concluded; Fresh recruitment process; Panel/
Merit List extinguished after expiry; Already-expired panel/Merit 
List; No extension granted to the Panel by competent authority; 
Selection process over; Validity of the panel; Panel’s validity not 
legally extended; Life of the panel/Merit List; Notified vacancies; No 
indefeasible/vested right to be appointed against notified vacancies; 
No right of appointment; Candidate’s suitability; Evaluation criteria; 
District Primary School Councils.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1873 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2022 of the High Court at 
Calcutta in MAT No.1734 of 2022
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1874 and 1875-1876 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Vinay Navare, Jaideep Gupta, Dr. Menaka 
Guruswamy, Rauf Rahim, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Advs., Gohlam, 
Ranjan Mukherjee, Anindo Mukherjee, Dr. Ram Kishore Choudhary, 
Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Mrs. Aisha Siddiqui, Ms. Sakeena 
Quidwai, Chand Qureshi, Amit Pawan, Abhishek Amritanshu, Hassan 
Zubair Waris, Aakarsh, Ms. Suchit
Singh Rawat, Ms. Shivangi, Kunal 
Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh, 
Soumik Ghosal, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Srija Choudhury, 
Ms. Osheen Bhat, Ms. Nitipriya Kar, Ms. Anju Thomas, Ms. Astha 
Sharma, Shreyas Awasthi, Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Rohan Trivedi, 
Ms. Swapnil Baudh, Deepin Shani, Ms. Ananya Arora, M/s. Equity 
Lex Associates, Salman Khurshid, Mrs. Naghma Imtiaz, Zargham 
Ahmed, Ms. Sidra Khan, Ms. Riddhi Goyal, Ms. Sonika Choudhary, 
Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Ms. Neha Rathi, Kamal Kishore, Ms. 
Kajal Giri, Lavkesh Bhambhani, Utkarsh Pratap, Harshwardhan 
Thakur, Parminder Singh Bhullar, Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Ms. Sumedha 
Halder, Ali Ahasan Alamgir, Asif Iqbal, Rohit Jaiswal, Srikanth Reddy
938
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Gopavaram, Samreddy Bharath Simha Redd, Abhijit Sengupta, Bijay 
Kumar Chatterjee, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Chawla, 
Ms. Suhasni Bangopadhyaya, Tejasavni Ghose, Binay Kumar 
Das, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Arvind Gupta, Anindya Ghosh, 
Raghavendra Pratap Singh, Amit Suden, M/s. Mukesh Kumar Singh 
and Co., Mukesh Kumar Singh, Pawan Kumar Dhiman, Ikshit Singhal, 
Ms. Kajal Rani, Ms. Sujata K Muni, J S Maratha, Rahul Maratha, 
Subhasish Bhowmick, Ms. Manisha Pandey, Rahul Kushwaha, Ms. 
Neerja Sharma, Sohit Bhardwaj, Ashutosh Singh, Devesh Kumar 
Mishra, Satender Kr. Vashistha, Pranav Sachdeva, Ali Rahim, 
Jatin Bhardwaj, Mandeep Kalra, Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Dibyendu 
Chatterjee, Firdous Samim, Ali Asghar Rahim, Ms. Piyali Paul, Ms. 
Fatima Baig, Shekhar Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Hrishikesh Roy, J. 
1.	
Heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior 
counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Vinay Navare, 
Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Mr. Salman Khurshid, Mr. Rauf Rahim and 
Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned senior counsel, Ms. Sumedha 
Halder and Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing 
for the respondents & impleaders.
2.	
Relevant facts for the sake of convenience are taken from Civil 
Appeal Nos. 1875-1876 of 2024, filed by the West Bengal Board of 
Primary Education [hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’].
FACTUAL MATRIX
3.
The origin of the dispute lies in the Board’s Notification dated 
23.12.2020 for filling up 16,500 vacancies of primary school teachers 
with a qualification criterion of possessing the minimum NCTE-
prescribed training qualification and having qualified the Teacher 
Eligibility Test 2014 [hereinafter referred to as ‘TET-2014’]. Thereafter, 
a Merit List for 15,284 candidates was notified on 15.02.2021. 
Subsequently, two more Merit Lists were published, covering all 
the 16,500 vacancies that were notified by the Board. As per the 
West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 
[hereinafter referred to as ‘Recruitment Rules, 2016’], the said panel
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
939
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of 
Primary Education & Ors.
of candidates was then sent across to the respective District Primary 
School Councils (‘appointing authority’ under S. 5 of Recruitment 
Rules 2016) to make appointments therefrom.
4.	
At that shape, a few candidates who had not yet been appointed 
approached the Calcutta High Court seeking directions that the Board 
fill up the remaining vacant seats by reducing cut-off marks in each 
category. After the unfilled vacancies were reconciled, the learned 
Single Judge vide order dated 26.09.2022 directed that the 252 Writ 
Petitioners be granted appointments against these unfilled 3929 
vacancies. Subsequently, the Board notified the filling up of a fresh 
set of 11,765 vacancies for primary school teachers vide Notification 
dated 21.10.2022, considering the candidature from TET-2014 as 
well as TET-2017 candidates.
5.	
Immediately thereafter, the Board filed an appeal (MAT No. 1734/2022 
& CAN 1/2022) challenging the Single Judge’s order of 26.09.2022. 
In dismissing the Board’s appeal, the Division Bench directed that 
the balance 3929 vacancies of primary school teachers be treated 
exclusively as part of the 16,500 vacancies pertaining to TET-2014 
candidates only, for which recruitment process had commenced vide 
Notification dated 23.12.2020. 
6.	
The Division Bench concluded that the entire TET-2014 selection 
as well as the appointment process was fraught with
irregularities. 
The Merit List contained only ranks of the candidates without offering 
their comparative marks. It was observed that not just the TET-2014 
candidates or Writ Petitioners before the High Court but the Board 
itself was not aware of the cut-off mark at which appointments had 
ceased. Marks were not disclosed to the unsuccessful candidates 
and they were given only one-line intimation that they were ‘not 
included in the present Merit List’. These features shrouded the entire 
selection process into deeper suspicion, thereby further vitiating the 
appointment process as opined by the Division Bench.
7.	
With this understanding, the Division Bench directed that the TET-
2014 Eligibility List be treated as the Merit List to determine inter-se 
positions of the TET-2014 candidates, including those 252 applicants 
who had filed Writ Petitions before the High Court. Consequently, 
the Single Bench order dated 26.09.2022 was modified to the 
effect that the 3929 left over vacancies were extended to all the 
remaining TET-2014 candidates, in descending order of their inter-se
940
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
positions in the TET Eligibility List 2014, notwithstanding the fact that 
these vacancies were carried forward through a fresh recruitment 
Notification dated 29.09.2022.
8.	
Appeals herein have been filed by the Board & others to challenge 
the Division Bench judgment dated 11.11.2022 of the Calcutta High 
Court in MAT 1734/2022 and I.A. No. CAN 1/2022.
Submissions
9.	
The primary contention of Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Ms. Meenakshi 
Arora, learned senior counsel, is rooted in the provisions of the 
Recruitment Rules, 2016. They would refer to the procedure of 
selection specified in Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, 2016 to 
contend that the Merit List is based on evaluation conducted on 
various parameters, following which marks are awarded to candidates. 
Eventually, the Merit List is published and thereafter, appointments 
are to be made on the basis of marks secured by the candidates 
in the evaluation process specified in the provisions. However, the 
directions issued by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment 
provide for appointments to be made on the basis of candidates’ inter-
se positions in the TET Eligibility List 2014, which is in contravention 
to the procedure specified under the Recruitment Rules, 2016.
10.	 It is then argued that the life of the panel/Merit List remains valid for 
a period of one year from the date of approval by the Board. In this 
case, since the panel was notified on 15.02.2021, it
naturally expired 
after one year on 15.02.2022. In this case, candidates filed their Writ 
Petitions only in May 2022 i.e., approximately three months after 
the panel had expired. Therefore, no individual could have claimed 
any right of appointment in reference to the particular recruitment 
process after the panel had expired.
11.	 Additionally, Mr. Gupta pointed out that the 3929 vacancies that 
remained unfilled due to various factors were then carried forward 
through a Notification dated 29.09.2022 as part of the fresh recruitment 
cycle. Under the new process, 9500 appointments were already been 
made from the advertised 11,500 vacancies. It would therefore not 
be fair to dislodge the appointed candidates either from the previous 
or current recruitment cycle.
12.	 Appearing for those candidates who seek appointment to the 3929 
left-over vacancies from the initial pool of 16,500 vacancies, Dr.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
941
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of 
Primary Education & Ors.
Menaka Guruswamy, learned senior counsel contends that although 
the validity of the panel as per Rule 12 is one year, there is a provision 
to extend the validity of the same by six months at a time but the 
total period of such extension cannot exceed one year in any case.
13.	 It was argued that the learned Single Judge in WPA No. 8981 
of 2022 gave sufficient opportunity to the Board to put forth the 
relevant information pertaining to the entire recruitment exercise in 
a transparent manner. Despite many such requests, directions and 
reminders by the Court, information was not forthcoming about the 
respective candidates’ ranks, marks, category, cut-offs, etc. Even 
when the matter was posted for consideration on 26.09.2022, these 
relevant information were not furnished by the Board. 
14.	 Finding that the names of the 252 Writ Petitioners in WPA No. 
8981/2022 are figuring in the particulars submitted by the Board 
in a tabular form, the learned Judge issued direction that the 252 
Writ Petitioners should be granted appointments against the unfilled 
vacancies (3929). The Division Bench likewise noticed the inequities 
that the candidates had been put through along with the arduous 
nature of seeking employment as well as the lack of bona fide conduct 
on the Board’s part. Therefore, left with no choice but to ignore the 
Merit List fraught with irregularities, the
Division Bench directed that 
the appointments be made on the basis of the inter-se positions of 
candidates within the TET Eligibility List 2014.
15.	 Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel in his turn pointed out that 
the entire recruitment exercise had been done in a reckless manner 
with little to no information in the public domain. Although the Merit 
List had been notified by the Board, marks scored by candidates 
were not put forth as part of the same. Additionally, even the 
candidates were not informed of their scores or the cut-off mark to 
be breached, to be included in the Merit List. In fact, the Board was 
not forthcoming on why 3929 vacancies had remained, why no written 
test was conducted and other relevant informations, pertaining to the 
recruitment process. In light of the same, the counsel contends that 
the panel, being full of such glaring lapses and errors, was not valid 
in law and therefore the panel can’t possibly have an expiry date.
Discussion
16.	 As earlier noted, the recruitment for primary school teachers is 
governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2016. The Rule 8 provides for
942
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the procedure for selection of candidates. After a prima facie scrutiny 
of application forms by the Selection Committee, candidates are 
made to undergo a round of interview(s) and aptitude test(s). 
17.	 Thereafter, an evaluation is done on the basis of marks that are 
awarded or computed as per the criteria. These are extracted here 
for easy reference:
“8. Procedures of selection: ……. (3) Academic qualifications, 
training, performance in the TET, Extra Curricular activities 
and performance in viva-voce or interview and Aptitude 
test, shall be computed in the manner as mentioned in 
Table A below:-
Sl. No.
Item for Evaluation
Max. Marks
(i)
Madhyamik pass under the West 
Bengal Board of Secondary 
Education or its equivalent
05
(ii)
Higher Secondary pass under 
the West Bengal Council of 
Higher Secondary Education or 
its equivalent
10
(iii)
Training as specified by NCTE
15
(iv)
Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)
05
(v)
Extra-Curricular Activities
05
(vi)
Viva-Voce or Interview
05
(vii)
Aptitude Test
05
Total
50
Note 1.- The percentage of marks obtained by the candidate 
in the Madhyamik Examination or its equivalent excluding 
additional marks, if any, shall be reduced proportionately 
to marks obtained out of 5. 
Note 2.- The percentage of marks obtained by the candidate 
in the Higher Secondary, Madhyamik Examination or its 
equivalent excluding additional marks, if any, shall be 
reduced proportionately to marks
obtained out of 10. 
Note 3.- The percentage of marks obtained by the 
candidate in the relevant Teacher Training shall be reduced 
proportionately to marks obtained out of 15.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
943
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of 
Primary Education & Ors.
Note 4.- The percentage of marks obtained by the candidate 
in the TET Examination shall be reduced proportionately 
to marks obtained out of 5. 
Note 5.- Marks out of maximum five (5) Marks as mentioned 
in Sl. No. (v) of Table A of this rule shall be awarded to 
the candidates, including para teacher, in the following 
manner:-
Sl. No.
Extra Curricular Activities
Marks
1
Games and Sports
1
2
National Cadet Corps (NCC)
1
3
Arts and Literature
1
4
Performing Art (Drama)
1
5
Music
1
Total:
5
18.	 The evaluation criteria envisages marks to be awarded on relevant 
academic qualifications, NCTE-mandated training, performance in 
TET, extra-curricular activities, performance in the viva-voce and 
aptitude test to the aspirants. Even within the criteria, extra-curricular 
activities are to be awarded as per the candidate’s experience in 
music, arts, drama, literature, etc.
19.	 As specified under the Recruitment Rules, 2016, the panel under 
Rule 2(l) of eligible/selected candidates is to be prepared bearing 
in mind the aggregate of marks provided in Rule 8(3) and Table 
A appended thereto. It is clear that the evaluation criteria to be 
taken into account as per Table A and Rule 8(3) is a far more 
comprehensive method of evaluating a candidate’s suitability for the 
post than the performance in TET i.e., a qualifying examination for 
teaching eligibility. The impugned judgment
however directed that 
appointments against the remaining 3929 vacancies shall be made 
in a descending order of candidates’ respective inter-se positions 
in TET Eligibility List 2014.
20.	 Therefore, the manner of shortlisting candidates for appointment as 
directed by the Division Bench is at loggerheads with and in departure 
from the procedure envisaged under Rule 8. Being inconsistent with 
the Recruitment Rules, 2016, such a direction cannot be sustained.
944
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
21.	 The next issue is whether the remaining 3929 vacancies are to 
be treated exclusively as part of 16,500 vacancies for which the 
recruitment process commenced via a Notification dated 23.12.2020, 
or whether such vacancies can be carried forward to the next 
recruitment cycle that commenced via a Notification dated 29.09.2022 
instead.
22.	 Although the first advertisement reflected a total of 16,500 vacancies, 
the Merit List (notified on 15.02.2021) was only for 15,284 candidates. 
Thereafter, two additional Merit Lists with 478 and 738 candidates 
respectively were notified thereby taking the total count to 16,500. 
During the proceedings before the High Court, the learned Single 
Judge on 22.02.2021 passed an interim order staying appointments 
from the Merit List notified on 15.02.2021. However, the Division 
Bench by its order on 04.03.2021 declared that the Board is bound 
by the said Merit List dated 15.02.2021 and permitted appointments 
to be made to the 15,284 posts. Thereafter, regular appointments 
came to be made.
23.	 Since the panel expired after one year under Rule 12 of the 
Recruitment Rules, 2016, the Board issued a fresh advertisement to fill 
up 11,765 vacancies. It was argued that the unfilled vacancies should 
be treated exclusively as a part of the recruitment process initiated 
through Notification dated 23.12.2020 and the Court may modify the 
Division Bench direction to the extent that the
3929 vacancies are 
filled up on the basis of merit determined in consonance with Rule 
8 of the Recruitment Rules, 2016. The aforementioned argument 
can be accepted only if a legal justification is found for the Writ 
Petitioner’s appointment to the 16,500 posts.
24.	 To better understand whether such a panel can be utilised for 
appointment after its expiry and if there exists a legal right to be 
considered for appointments to the notified 16,500 vacancies, it is 
relevant to take note of the ratio in the following judgments:
i.	
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors.1:
“16. A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the 
purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up 
taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. 
1	
[2010] 7 SCR 301 : (2010) 6 SCC 777 at 783. Para 16
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
945
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of 
Primary Education & Ors.
It is the settled legal proposition that no relief can be 
granted to the candidate if he approaches the court after 
the expiry of the select list. If the selection process is over, 
select list has expired and appointments had been made, 
no relief can be granted by the court at a belated stage.”
ii.	
Union of India v. B. Valluvan2:
“17. The life of a panel ordinarily is one year. The same can 
be extended only by the State and that too if the statutory 
rule permits it to do so. The High Court ordinarily would not 
extend the life of a panel. Once a panel stands exhausted 
upon filling up of all the posts, the question of enforcing a 
future panel would not arise. It was for the State to accept 
the said recommendations of the Selection Committee 
or reject the same. As has been noticed hereinbefore, 
all notified vacancies as also the vacancy which arose in 
2000 had also been filled up. As the future vacancy had 
already been filled up in the year 2000, the question of 
referring back to the panel prepared in the year 1999 did 
not arise. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be 
sustained.”
iii.	
Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan3:
“16. Furthermore, the select list would ordinarily remain 
valid for one year. We fail to understand on what basis 
appointments were made in 2003 or subsequently. Whether 
the validity of the said select list was extended or not
is not known. Extension of select list must be done in 
accordance with law. Apart from a bald statement made 
in the list of dates that the validity of the said select list 
had been extended, no document in support thereof has 
been placed before us.”
iv.	
State of Bihar v. Mohd. Kalimuddin4:
“ 8. As held in the case of Shankarsan Dash [(1991) 3 SCC 
47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95 : (1991) 2 
2	
[2006] Supp. 7 SCR 755 : (2006) 8 SCC 686, Para 17
3	
[2009] 1 SCR 585 : (2009) 2 SCC 706 at 709, Para 16
4	
[1996] 1 SCR 314 : (1996) 2 SCC 7 at 12. Paras 8 & 9
946
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
SCR 567] even if vacancies are notified for appointment 
and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the 
successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right 
to be appointed, unless the relevant rules indicate to the 
contrary. It is indeed expected of the State to act bona fide 
and for valid reasons in refusing to make the appointments 
after the selection process has been gone through……..
Without knowing the nature of change it was not open 
to the High Court to anticipate the policy and brand it as 
unreasonable.
9. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that even 
if it is assumed that the panel or select list had not expired 
at the date of filing of the writ petition, the refusal on the 
part of the Government to make appointments from the 
panel or select list, vide letter dated 27-5-1993, could not 
be condemned as arbitrary, irrational and or mala fide. 
We, therefore, reverse the view taken by the High Court, 
set it aside and hold that the original writ petition was 
liable to be dismissed and we hereby dismiss the same. 
No order as to costs.”
25.	 The opinion expressed in the above judgments makes it clear that 
a panel or a Merit List cannot be treated as if it exists in perpetuity, 
which will facilitate making appointments as and when required. 
When the panel expires or after the selection process is over with 
most posts being filled, the benefit of appointments cannot be given 
unless
the panel’s validity is legally extended. However, no such 
extension of the panel’s validity was granted. In fact, in conclusion 
of the earlier process, a fresh recruitment process was undertaken 
vide Notification dated 29.09.2022, through which, 9500 candidates 
have already been appointed.
26.	 That apart even when vacancies are notified and an adequate number 
of candidates are shortlisted, these candidates do not acquire an 
indefeasible right to be appointed against those vacancies. Multiple 
factors are to be taken into account by the Board, including suitability 
as per district, age, language, etc. before appointments are made. 
For such reasons 3929 vacancies remained unfilled by the time the 
panel’s validity expired. Before that, 12,571 appointments were made.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
947
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of 
Primary Education & Ors.
27.	 As earlier noted, the selection process for appointment to the posts 
of primary teacher is to be made by assessment of merit by the 
Selection Committee as notified under Rule 8 of the Recruitment 
Rules, 2016. The recruitment process initiated on 23.12.2020 cannot 
continue indefinitely. The 2020 recruitment process had concluded 
and the fresh recruitment process commenced thereafter vide 
notification dated 29.09.2022. It would therefore not be appropriate 
for this Court to direct appointments to be made against the remaining 
3929 vacancies, from the already-expired Merit List.
28.	 Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned senior counsel, placed heavy 
reliance on the ratio in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South 
East Central Railway & Ors.5 to contend that although the selected 
candidate may not have any vested right to be appointed against the 
available vacancies but when the employer decides not to fill up the 
posts, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously. On this aspect, 
suffice it would be to say that the Rules provided for shelf life of one 
year for the panel list. Admittedly, extension of the said list (notified 
on 15.02.2021) was not granted by any authority. As the decision 
to not act upon the expired select list is based upon the provisions 
of the Rules, we are disinclined to accept the argument advanced 
by the learned senior counsel based on the ratio
in Dinesh Kumar 
Kashyap. It may also be noted that the candidates in Dinesh Kumar 
Kashyap (supra) had approached the Court during the validity of 
the select list unlike in these matters where the first batch of Writ 
Petitions came to be filed in May 2022, i.e., roughly three months 
after the expiry of the said Merit List in February 2022.
29.	 In light of the above discussion, the following conclusions are reached:
i.	
The manner of shortlisting candidates for appointment as 
suggested by the Division Bench in the impugned judgments 
is inconsistent with the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of 
the Recruitment Rules, 2016, and those, cannot be sustained.
ii.	
The Panel or Merit List as notified on 15.02.2021 stood 
extinguished after expiry of one year i.e., on 15.02.2022, as 
per Rule 12 of the Recruitment Rules, 2016.
5	
[2018] 14 SCR 947 : (2019) 12 SCC 798
948
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
iii.	
No extension by any competent authority was granted to the 
15.02.2021 Panel and therefore no relief can be granted to 
candidates who approached the court in May 2022, i.e., long 
after the panel stood extinguished.
iv.	
No further appointments is permissible from the recruitment 
process initiated on 23.12.2020 when a fresh recruitment 
process has commenced.
30.	 The impugned judgment rendered by the Division Bench on 
11.11.2022 and the earlier direction given by the learned Single Judge 
on 26.09.2022 are accordingly set aside. The concerned 252 Writ 
Petitioners and others who are sailing with this group, do not have 
any legitimate claim for appointments, to the remaining vacancies in 
the form of the 23.12.2020 recruitment process. The appeals stand 
allowed accordingly.
31.	 The IA No. 28252 of 2024 and IA No. 28255 of 2024 are allowed 
to the extent of the prayers made by the applicant(s). All pending 
application(s), if any, including impleadment or intervention 
application(s), shall stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1873 OF 2024
32.	 In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 1875-1876 of 2024, 
this appeal stands disposed of.
33.	 All pending application(s), if any, including impleadment/ intervention 
application(s) shall stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1874 OF 2024
34.	 In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 1875-1876 of 2024, 
this appeal stands disposed of.
35.	 All pending
application(s), if any, including impleadment/ intervention 
application(s) shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Civil Appeal Nos.1875-1876 of 2024 allowed.  
Civil Appeal Nos.1873-1874 of 2024 disposed of.
†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey