Kiran Sankar Deb Gupta v. State of West Bengal — 1976 DIGILAW 89 (CAL)

JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was as follows :- 1. Common question of law are involved in these Rules. The facts and circumstances of these cases are also similar. Accordingly, all these Rules were heard together. My judgment in Civil Rule No. 5774 (W) of 1974 shall govern all these cases. 2. The petitioner, Kiran Sankar Deb Gupta belongs to the Scheduled Caste. On 24th January, 1972 advertisements were made in the name and under the signature of Sri S. C. Sen, the District Inspector of Schools, District School Board, 24-Pargnas, inviting applications for preparation of a panel for appointment of teachers in Rural Primary and Junior Basic Schools in the district of 24 Parganas. Petitioner filed an application for the post of a primary teacher in pursuant to the said advertisement. On 8th September, 1972, he was directed to appear for an interview at Kakdwip High School. By a Memorandum dated 25th July, 1972, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Interview Board consisted of six persons amongst whom two were local Members of the Legislative Assembly. On 23rd March, 1973, the petitioner received the Letter of Appointment. It is stated therein that as per Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal, Memo No. 4161 SC/P dated 7.7.73, Sri Kiran Sankar Deb Gupta is appointed temporarily to act as an Assistant Teacher of Shibrampur Junior Basic Free School, P.O, Shibrampur in Namkhana Circle on usual terms and conditions in the scale of Rs. 165-205/with immediate effect, in the additional post created in terms of G.O. No. 1175 dated 1st of December, 1971. It appears from the said Letter that the approval of Director of Public Instruction was obtained prior to the issue of such letter. Thereafter, on 30th July, 1974 the petitioner received a letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools, 24-Parganas. The text whereof is given below:- "Your appointment purely on temporary basis was made in this office memo No. 5216/4 dated 23.3.73 has been in contravention of statutory Rules since that has been from outside the approved panel of teachers of the District. It has been illegal and is to be treated as void ab initio. You will, however, be paid for the services actually rendered by you upto 31st August, 1974 including the period of one Calendar month's notice of termination of your temporary appointment". 3. It has been illegal and is to be treated as void ab initio. You will, however, be paid for the services actually rendered by you upto 31st August, 1974 including the period of one Calendar month's notice of termination of your temporary appointment". 3. Petitioners in other connected Rules, were also appointed similarly as temporary primary teachers and their services have also been terminated by similar letters issued by the District Inspector of Schools. 4. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and affirmed by Nikhilesh Chandra Chakraborty, Joint Deputy Director of Public Instruction (Primary). It has been disclosed in the said affidavit-in-opposition that sometimes by the end of the month of March, 1974 serious allegations regarding the recruitment of primary teachers were received alleging that the several appointments of Recruitment Rules for the appointment of primary teachers in the Primary and Junior Basic Schools under the administrative control of the District School Board. Upon receipt of such allegations, the Education Minister on the 2nd April 1974 called the Deputy Director of Public Instruction (Primary Education) and instructed him to start an investigation into the allegations against Sri S.C. Sen, District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), 24-Parganas. It was also reported that the alleged appointments were made by him before his final retirement from service with effect from 1st April, 1974. 5. In order to ascertain the actual number of appointment letters issued towards the close of the month of March 1974, the Issue Register was called for but no Issue Register of the Board was available in the office. It was reported that Franking Machine necessary for issue of letters was not also available in the office. That it was planned and pre-conceived could be understood from the report of the Finance Officer of the Board in the matter of refusal of Sri Sen to make a deposit of the long outstanding Provident Fund contribution of Teachers amounting to about a crore of rupees into the Postal accounts to avoid non-payment of teachers appointed outside the available quota before the Pujas. By a memorandum dated 8th April, 1974 the D.P.I. asked the District Inspector of Schools, 24-Parganas to ascertain irregular cases of appointment made earlier, i.e. from July, 1973 onwards to date and report his findings in detail to the Director of Public Instruction West Bengal for necessary action. By a memorandum dated 8th April, 1974 the D.P.I. asked the District Inspector of Schools, 24-Parganas to ascertain irregular cases of appointment made earlier, i.e. from July, 1973 onwards to date and report his findings in detail to the Director of Public Instruction West Bengal for necessary action. Bya Memorandum dated 10th April, 1974 the Education Department also was apprised of the position with regard to the alleged malpractices in the District School Board, 24-Parganas, and was requested to arrange a thorough probe to ascertain the extent of it through the State Vigilance Commission. On 23rd April, 1974, the District Inspector of Schools\Primary Education) (In-Charge), 24-Parganas summoned a conference of all Circle Inspectors in his Office at 60-B, Chowringhee Road, for discussion and necessary instruction with a view to find facts about the alleged irregularity. In course of discussion it was given to understand that the Circle Inspectors were not consulted at any stage before the issue of the appointment letters, the irregular appointments were made earlier and were pointed out by the Circle Inspectors but the same were not attended to by the District Inspector. The Circle Officer's copies of the appointment letters were sent through messengers in all the cases. Some Circle Inspectors were forced to draw bills in favour of some irregularly appointed teachers, there was no redress of threat and coercion of local people and of the candidates in the matter of drawal of bills. The Circle Inspectors, it appeared, were sceptical about the security in their lawful discharge of duties. On 26th June 1974, D.P.I., West Bengal informed the Government the details of gross irregularities committed by the said District inspector of Schools in violation of existing rules which are mainly as follows :- (i) Appointments have been made from outside the approved panel. (ii) Appointments have been made where it is not justified on the basis of enrolment. (iii) Appointments have been made in posts which are not vacant and not created by Government. 6. On consideration of the reports of the District Inspector of Schools, Primary Section and the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, the State Government considered that it could not undertake the responsibility for payment of salaries to such persons illegally and unauthprisealy appointed and that services of such teachers being temporary may be terminated forthwith. 7. 6. On consideration of the reports of the District Inspector of Schools, Primary Section and the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, the State Government considered that it could not undertake the responsibility for payment of salaries to such persons illegally and unauthprisealy appointed and that services of such teachers being temporary may be terminated forthwith. 7. Accordingly, only appointments which are found not according to law and were made in contravention of the Recruitment Rules for the appointment of primary teachers were terminated in accordance with law pending decision of this Hon'ble Court. It is also stated that the petitioner's name did not appear in the approved panel of teachers of the District School Board in terms of the rules for recruitment of the Junior Basic Free Primary School Teachers. The additional posts which were referred to in the appointment letters were created without previous approval of the State Government in terms of the Recruitment Rules. In paragraph 17 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition, it is stated that since the services of the petitioner were purely temporary ones and that were also in gross contravention of the recruitment rules for the recruitment of junior primary teachers in Junior Basic Primary Schools, the services of the petitioner were terminated with one month notice and pay. The order of termination has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools and not by the Additional District Inspector of Schools. 8. Mr. Chakraborti, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended at the outset, that as the reasons have been stated in the orders of termination that the appointments were made in contravention of statutory rules, the onus was on the respondents to satisfy the Court as to which of the statutory rules had been violated which rendered the appointments of so many teachers void. 9. Mr. Sengupta, appearing on behalf of the State has contended that by a notification dated 26tb October, 1971, Rules in respect of the appointment of the primary teachers have been amended. Those rules are framed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (P), sub-section (2) of Section 66 of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930. The rules which have been contravened, according to Mr. Sengupta, are rules 3(1), 3A, 3B (1), 3B (2) and 3B (3). 10. To appreciate the arguments of the parties it is necessary to set out the relevant rules: 3 (1). The rules which have been contravened, according to Mr. Sengupta, are rules 3(1), 3A, 3B (1), 3B (2) and 3B (3). 10. To appreciate the arguments of the parties it is necessary to set out the relevant rules: 3 (1). A Board shall appoint teachers, whether temporarily or substantively, only from the panel of qualified teachers for the district forwarded by the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, and in accordance with the directions, if any, given by him. 3A. No name shall be forwarded by Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, for appointment under a Board unless it has been included in the panel of qualified teachers prepared for the district after adequate publicity and in the manner provided in rule 3B. 3B. (1) The Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, may, with the approval of, the State Government, set up a Selection Committee in each district to assist him in selecting suitable persons from amongst the candidates for inclusion in the panel of qualified teachers for the district. . (2) The Selection Committee may hold such test including interview as they may deem proper and necessary for the candidates, but it is open to the selection committee to call only those amongst the candidates, they may consider suitable. The interviews and other tests shall be held at a convenient place or places in the district or with prior approval of the State Government, outside the district. (3) The Selection Committee shall send their list of names of qualified persons recommended by them to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal who may modify or alter the list. Only the names as finally approved by the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal shall be included in the panel for the district. 11. It appears on the perusal of these rules, that the appointments of the primary teachers shall be made only from the panel of qualified teachers prepared in the manner provided in rule 3B. No name shall be forwarded by the DPI for appointment unless it is included in the panel of qualified teachers prepared for the district. In the matter of selection of qualified teachers, it has been provided in rule 3B that the Selection Committee would be set up in each district. The said Committee may hold tests, interviews etc. from amongst the candidates whom it may consider suitable. In the matter of selection of qualified teachers, it has been provided in rule 3B that the Selection Committee would be set up in each district. The said Committee may hold tests, interviews etc. from amongst the candidates whom it may consider suitable. After the selection of qualified teachers, a list of such persons will be sent to the DPI who may modify or alter the list. Only the names in the list which are approved by the DPI shall be included in the panel of qualified teachers for the district and the appointments are to be made from the said approved panel. 12. It is contended by Mr. Chakraborti that under Section 23 (1) (g) of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930 a duty has been cast upon the District School Board subject to the prescribed conditions, to appoint, and to fix, and to pay the salaries of teachers in the primary schools. Rules 3 (1), 3 (2) and 3A are restricted only to the appointments made by the Board under Section 23 (1) (g). But when the Board is superseded under Section 22, the provisions of those ru1es would not be applicable in such cases. According to Mr. Chakraborti the District Inspector of Schools is not required to follow the above rules in appointing a primary teacher of a superseded District School Board. 13. On 11th August, 1969, the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary provisions) Act, 1969 (West Bengal Act XII of 1969) was passed. In the preamble of the Act, it is stated "an Act to reorganise the administration of primary education in rural areas in West Bengal and pending such reorganisation to supersede the District School Boards and to provide for certain connected matters. Section 3 provides that the State Government may, by an order passed in the Official Gazette, supersede all District School Boards for such periods as may be specified in the order and may, from time to time, by like order, extend the period of supersession. Section 4 says that when an order of supersession has been made under Section 3, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time doing in force, the following consequences shall ensue, namely. Section 4 says that when an order of supersession has been made under Section 3, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time doing in force, the following consequences shall ensue, namely. (b) all the powers, duties and functions which may, under 1he provisions of the Act, any rule or regulation made thereunder or of any other law for the time being in force be exercised, discharged and performed by a District School Board or the President or Vice President thereof shall, during the period of supersession be exercised, discharged and performed by the District Inspector of Schools of the District for which the District School Board is established. 14. In view of Section 4(6) of the West Bengal Act XII of 1969, all powers, duties, and functions under the provisions of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930, during the period of supersession of the District School Beard can be exercised, discharged or performed by the District Inspector of Schools of the district. so, I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chakraborti, in view of the specific provisions in the statute, that the District Inspector of Schools is not required to follow the rules of recruitment of primary teachers when the District School Board has been superseded under Section 22 of the Act. 15. It is urged that rule 3B(1) is discretionary and not mandatory inasmuch as the said rule bas used the word 'may'. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (1) State of U. P. v. 8abu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751 at page 765, where the relevant rules of interpretation has been stated by the Supreme Court : When a statute uses the word "shall", prima facie, it is mandatory, but the Court may ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the Statute. For ascertaining the real intention of the Legislature the Court may consider, inter alia. For ascertaining the real intention of the Legislature the Court may consider, inter alia. the nature and the design of the Statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other, the impact of other provisions where by the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the circumstances, namely that the Statute provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty, the serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom, and, above all. whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered". In Craies on Stature law, 5th Edn., the following passage appears at page 242 : "No universal rule can be laid down as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty of Courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the Legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed." The above passage was approved by the Supreme Court in (2) State of U. P. v. Manbodhan Lal, AIR 1957 SC 912 . 16. Now, what is the object of rule 3B? The object of the rule is, to set up the Selection Committee in each district for the purpose of selecting suitable persons from amongst the candidates for the inclusion in the panel of qualified teachers for the district. Rule 3A provides that no name shall be forwarded by the DPI for appointment of a primary teacher unless it bas been included in the panel prepared in the manner provided in rule 38. Therefore, it follows that without forming a panel as provided in rule 3B, there cannot be any appointment of primary teacher of a District School Board. Considering the whole scope of the rules, it cannot be said that rule 3B (1) is discretionary. In my opinion, it is mandatory and non-compliance of such rule renders the appointment of a teacher under the District School Board, void and illegal. 17. It is contended that except Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930, there is no provision which entitles the Government to dispense with the services of the temporary primary teachers. In absence of any rule or regulation, the principles of natural justice should be followed. 17. It is contended that except Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930, there is no provision which entitles the Government to dispense with the services of the temporary primary teachers. In absence of any rule or regulation, the principles of natural justice should be followed. An enquiry was held by the Government to find out the irregularities regarding the appointments made as disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition. That enquiry was held behind the back of the petitioner and he was not given any opportunity to prove that his name was included in the panel formed by the Selection Committee. The petitioner should have a say in that matter. 18. In the course of hearing, Mr. Mohitosh Mazumder, one of the Junior learned Advocates, appearing for the petitioner, produced in court a list of the Selection Committee signed by some of the members showing that the petitioner's name has been included in the list. There Upon, I directed' the respondents to produce all the relevant records before the Court. Two supplementary affidavits have been filed. One by Sri Nishit Ranjan Kar, the Director of Public Instruction of the Government of West Bengal. In that supplementary affidavit the list duly considered and approved by him for appointment in the posts of primary teachers has been annexed. In that list the petitioner's name did not appear. The Selection list which was sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the DPI was also produced in court. In that list, against the petitioner's name there was a cross mark. Unfortunately, the list prepared by the Selection Committee was not produced. I was told that the said list was lost. The Register of the candidates was produced. Petitioner's name was duly entered therein. Another supplementary affidavit bas been filed by Rakhal Dasgupta, an employee of the present District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), 24-Parganas. In that affidavit it has been disclosed how the Advisory Board was framed when its meeting were held, the extracts of the resolution have also been stated therein. 19. It is conceded by the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the different petitioners that provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution are not attracted to these cases. 20. In that affidavit it has been disclosed how the Advisory Board was framed when its meeting were held, the extracts of the resolution have also been stated therein. 19. It is conceded by the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the different petitioners that provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution are not attracted to these cases. 20. Rule 12 of the Rules provides that no teacher shall be punished, dismissed, discharged, rewarded or promoted by the Board without a previous report of his or her work from the District Inspector of Schools or the Female Inspecting Officer-in-Charge of the area within which the primary school is situated as the case may be. Obviously, Rule 12 has got no application with respect to termination of services of a temporary teacher. 21. In (3) Dhingra's case, AIR 1958 SC 36 , it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that an appointment to a temporary post for a certain specific period gives the servant a right to bold the post for the entire period of his tenure, and his tenure cannot be put to an end during that period unless he is, by way of punishment, dismissed or removed from the services. Except in these cases, the appointment to a post, permanent or temporary, on probation or on an officiating basis or substantive appointment to a temporary post gives to the servant so appointed no right to the post and his services may be terminated unless his services had ripened into what is, in the service rules, called a quasi-permanent service. 22. In (4) Salish Chandra Anand v. Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250 , the Supreme Court said that when the employment is permanent, there are certain guarantees but in the absence of any such limitation Government is free to make special contract of service with temporary employees, engaged in works of a temporary nature, as in other employer. 23. In (5) Shrinivas v. Union of India AIR 1956 Bombay 455, Chagla CJ., siting with Dixit, J., said that in the case of temporary servant the tenure of his service may be regulated by a written contract, it may be regulated by rules, and in the absence of a contract or the rules it would be regulated by the principles of common law. If the contract between the Government and the temporary servant permits the Government to dispense with his services without notice and at any time, the Government is as much entitled to do so as any other private employer. 24. Before the Constitution came, it is to be noticed that subsection (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act 1935 lays down that it shall not be necessary to make rules regulating the conditions of service of persons employed temporarily on the terms that their employment may be terminated on one month's notice or less. 25. The law that governs the relation between the employee and the employer shall apply enqually to a case of an employee whose employer happens to be the State Government, unless there is something in law which has made a departure from that rule. When the Government dispenses with the services of a temporary servant, it is not for the Government to justify the order by referring to any specific rule but it is for the discharged employee to point out that there has been violation or contravention of any provision of any Act, rule or regulation. In my opinion, in the absence of any specific rule provided for the purpose of terminating the services of a temporary primary teacher of a District School Board, the Government under the common law can terminate the services of the petitioner, but it must give at least one month's notice or pay one month's salary in lieu of notice. Apart from that, there is no restriction on the right of the employer to dispense with the services of a temporary employee. 26. It cannot be disputed that if the Government had discharged without giving any reason at all, that order could not have been challenged by the petitioner because the petitioner being a temporary servant had no security of tenure and as such he could not claim to continue in government service for any length of time, and the Government like any other employer would be entitled to dispense with his services at any time, if thought proper. 27. Mr. Sengupta submitted that the ground for stating reasons in the order of termination was, to obviate difficulties of the petitioners for getting appointments in future. 28. 27. Mr. Sengupta submitted that the ground for stating reasons in the order of termination was, to obviate difficulties of the petitioners for getting appointments in future. 28. So the point for consideration is, whether by disclosing certain reasons in the impugned order of termination of a temporary employee, does the position alter? 29. If any appointment. is invalid, it is said to be null and void. Void acts are usually destitute of legal effect. They do not confer any legal right on anybody. Where Art. 311(2) is not applicable, it is not open to the employee to challenge the reasons given by his employer in dispensing his services nor it is open to him to say that he should be given an opportunity to controvert the accuracy of the materials on which the employer came to a particular conclusion. 30. It is not a case where Government has levelled any charge against the petitioner. It is not a case where an enquiry is required to be held against him. In (6) Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 , the words "reasonable opportunity" were considered by the Supreme Court. The reasonable opportunity includes: (a) an opportunity to deny one's guilt (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witness produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence. 31. Where there is no charge against the petitioner, then what he would controvert? He will produce witnesses for what purpose? Where there is no occasion for producing any witness on behalf of the employer, then what opportunity he requires for cross-examining the witness? In an enquiry by the Government to find out irregularities made by its own officers, the petitioner has got no right to be present or participate in such an enquiry or to have any "say" in that matter. 32. It is contended that the services of the petitioner have been terminated by a person who has got no authority to terminate the services. The Additional Inspector of District School Board has got no authority to issue the orders of termination. 33. It appears from the impugned order of termination that the order has been passed by Sri S. Rana, District Inspector of Schools. The Additional Inspector of District School Board has got no authority to issue the orders of termination. 33. It appears from the impugned order of termination that the order has been passed by Sri S. Rana, District Inspector of Schools. By a notification dated 16th April, 1974 it was notified that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in his letter dated 11th of April, 1974 to the Director of Public Instruction had conveyed the order of the Governor by which Sri Sukumar Rana, the Additional District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), 24-Parganas was directed to exercise such financial powers as have been delegated to the post of District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), 24-Parganas, until further orders vice Sri Suresh Chandra Sen retired. Thereafter, by an order dated 29th March, 1974 Sri Rana took over the charge on the 1st of April, 1974 of the Office of the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education). So it follows that on and from the 1st of April, 1974 Sri Rana was functioning as the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education). 34. Lastly it is argued that the action on the part of the Government was malafide. It is not necessary to name in the petition the particular officer or officers responsible for that action. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (7) Stare of Punjab v. Ramjl Lal & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1228 . 35. In Ramji Lal's case the Supreme Court said that there validity of action taken by State Government is challenged on the ground that the action was malafide then to established malafide it is not necessary for the party alleging malafide of the State action to prove that any named officer or officers was or were responsible for that official act. The law does not cast any such burden upon the party challenging the validity of that action of the State Government. The State Government has undoubtedly to act through its officers. What matters were considered, what matters were placed before the final authority and who had acted on behalf of the State Government in issuing the order in the name of the Governor, are all within the knowledge of the State Government. The State Government has undoubtedly to act through its officers. What matters were considered, what matters were placed before the final authority and who had acted on behalf of the State Government in issuing the order in the name of the Governor, are all within the knowledge of the State Government. It would be placing an Intolerable burden in proof of a just claim to require a party alleging malafides of the State action to aver in his petition and to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer was responsible for misusing the authority of the State by taking action for a collateral purpose. 36. In that case the plaintiff obtained a decree of a Civil Court for pre-emption but inspite of that the State Government in exercise of the powers under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, issued a notification excluding from the operation of the Act land with respect to which the plaintiff already obtained a decree. The High Court found on evidence that the impugned notification was not issued in good faith but issued malafide. I am unable to follow how that decision would be of any assistance to the petitioner. 37. In the instant case it has been disclosed in the various affidavits filed by the respondents that the previous District Inspector of Schools, Sri S. Sen made a large number of appointments of primary teachers under the District School Board, 24•Parganas, from outside the approved panel of DPI and thus violated some of the mandatory provisions of the relevant rules. Against that particular officer I am told, that the Government proposes to take disciplinary action against him. There is no allegation in the petition that for any collateral purpose or for any ulterior motive the petitioner's service has been dispensed with. If the Government has the right to terminate the services of a temporary employee, in my opinion, the motive of the Government becomes irrelevant. Moreover, from the above materials placed before me I am satisfied that there was no lack of bonafides on the part of the Government although there were numerous irregularities. Deplorable state of affairs in the matter of appointments of primary teachers under the administrative control of the District School Board, 24-Parganas, has been narrated, by the Joint DPI in his affidavit. 38. Deplorable state of affairs in the matter of appointments of primary teachers under the administrative control of the District School Board, 24-Parganas, has been narrated, by the Joint DPI in his affidavit. 38. It appeals that with regard to the matter of appointments of primary teachers under a superseded District School Board, the Government solely depended Upon a single- person, viz. the District Inspector of Schools. Although the rules provided that the Chairman of the Selection Committee shall be the District Magistrate but it is surprising that all the meetings of the Selection Committee had been presided over by a non-official member. Enormous powers and vast responsibilities were given to the District Inspector of Schools. Lakhs of rupees from the contribution of teacher's Provident Fund had been diverted and utilised for the purpose of paying salaries of a large number of teachers whose appointments were subsequently declared void. It seems that there was no vigilance, no control, no supervision over the activities of the District Inspector of Schools by the Government. There was complete lack of coordination between different departments. The records have not been kept properly. No separate list of Scheduled Caste and Women candidates as required under the Act were maintained. My attention was drawn to a letter of termination which has not even signed by the present District Inspector of Schools who issued the said letter. Regarding seventy five cases, the orders of termination had been revoked on representations made by the employees. On considering those representations, the Government was satisfied that their names were included in the approved panel. It appears from the above instances that there was non-application of mind in every sphere. Doubts of the petitioners that if the original selection lists were produced before the Court their names could have been found therein, have not been dispelled. It is extremely unfortunate that so many young boys and girls have lost their livelihood for no fault of their own. I hope and expect that there shall not be any recurrence of such things in future and if any appointments are made in future, the authorities concerned should sympathetically consider the case of all the petitioners. 39. I sympathies the petitioners. I regret, that I could not grant any relief to them. In the result, all these Rules are discharged. There will be no order for costs.