JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– The petitioner, Dr. Baidyanath Mukherjee, who appeared before the West Bengal College Service Commission in connection with an interview for empanelment, for selection of candidates for being appointed in the vacancies in the non-Government including Government-Sponsored-Colleges has assailed the purported letter of appointment issued in favour of respondent No. 10, Dr. Jayanta Banerjee as the Principal of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly, and the purported recommendation made by the West Bengal College Service Commission in favour of respondent No. 10 for appointment as Principal of the said College on the ground that the purported order of appointment of respondent No. 10 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the norms and/or requirements specified in the advertisement published in the Statesman on January 13, 1981. 2. The petitioner who is an M. A. in Bengali under the University of Calcutta and who obtained the Ph. D. degree from the Calcutta University in 1977 served as a teacher in different colleges for more than 16 years including service as a lecturer in the Hooghly Mohasin College, Chinsurah, for 7 years and the Presidency College, Calcutta for 9 years as an Assistant Professor and ultimately joined as the Principal of Banwarilal Bhalotia College, Asansol and he is working there in such capacity for the last three years. He is also serving as a part time lecturer in Post Graduate classes at the University of Burdwan. It has been stated that the petitioner is the author of books on Cultural History of Calcutta and on literary criticism and he is also regularly participating in radio talks and writing articles in the leading journals of Bengal. He is also a member of the Governing Body as D. P. I. nominee at Tribeni Devi Bhalotia College at Raniganj and previously at Bagati College at Bagati, in the District Hooghly. He is also an expert for evaluation of University level books published under the Ministry of Education and Social Education of Government of India. On January 13, 1981, an advertisement was published in the Statesman, being the No. I. C. A. 133(7)/81, inviting applications for selection of Principals for the vacancies in Government Sponsored Colleges and for empanelment in connection therewith. On January 13, 1981, an advertisement was published in the Statesman, being the No. I. C. A. 133(7)/81, inviting applications for selection of Principals for the vacancies in Government Sponsored Colleges and for empanelment in connection therewith. It was further provided amongst others in the said advertisement that the applications that will be made by the respective candidates will specify 'the area of preference of service'. This has been mentioned in Item No. 11 of the said advertisement. The petitioner in response to the above advertisement made an application along with a forwarding letter from the President of the Governing Body of the said College where he has been serving now and mentioned as his area of preference of service to the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly or in any other place nearer to his permanent residence. The said application was duly sent to the West Bengal College Service Commission. The petitioner was called for an interview by the Commission on April 7, 1981 and he was also asked to bring all relevant certificates/documents in original and research publications. After the interview the petitioner subsequently came to learn that the panel of selected candidates for appointments as Principals in different non-Government Colleges has already been prepared and according to available information he was placed at the top of the list. But unfortunately, as he was not being appointed to the post although persons placed below him, were given appointments in different Colleges, the petitioner was compelled to write a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, West Bengal and the Secretary, Department of Education, requesting them to exercise their good office so that justice may not be denied to him and his name duly be recommended for appointment as Principal of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna; Hooghly, according to his preference for the same. It has been further stated that it was quite natural to expect that the West Bengal College Service Commission would recommend his name to the authority of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly for appointment as Principal of that College as his preference for the same was already communicated to the said Commission. It has also been stated that he came to know that his name would not be sent to any other College as he has been already serving as Principal of Banwarilal Bhalotia College, Asansol. It has also been stated that he came to know that his name would not be sent to any other College as he has been already serving as Principal of Banwarilal Bhalotia College, Asansol. It has been submitted that such preference for the College was obtained from the candidates in order to enable the authorities concerned to give effect to such posting if the merits of the candidates otherwise permitted the same. It was further pleaded that the West Bengal College Service Commission acted arbitrarily and contrary to the principles of natural justice by denying him appointment though candidates, such as respondent No. 10 who was placed much below him in the panel in order of merit, was recommended for appointment as Principal of non-Government Colleges including Sponsored Colleges. It has also been stated in the said application that although he has been serving as the Principal of Banwarilal Bhalotia College yet the climate of the place has been telling upon his health as result of which he is on the look out for a change. The petitioner also states that it is not open to the respondents to act contrary to the terms of the advertisement and to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of selection and posting on grounds extraneous to the terms of the advertisement. A copy of this application is annexed as Annexure 'C' to the petition. It has been further stated in paragraph 10 of the petition that the petitioner has come to know that the Secretary, West Bengal College Service Commission, being respondent No.8, is now taking steps to recommend the name of respondent No. 10 for the post of Principal of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly in supersession of the claim of the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are making arbitrary discrimination in the matter of selection and recommendation of the name of the petitioner although the petitioner has been selected and placed at the top of the list. It has also been stated that the said appointment is sought to be made in favour of the respondent No. 10 in preference to the claim of the petitioner and the said appointment is being made arbitrarily and the said respondent Nos. 3 to 8 have been influenced by some extraneous considerations neither warranted by law nor relevant for the purpose. 3 to 8 have been influenced by some extraneous considerations neither warranted by law nor relevant for the purpose. It has also been stated that there cannot be any reason or justification for not giving effect to the preference of the petitioner when according to the selection made by the Commission itself the petitioner was placed at the top of the selection list or panel. The petitioner also states that in the matter of placement of candidates there is no other criterion or standard adopted or disclosed by the Commission and there is no justification for departing from the standard disclosed and acted upon by the candidates at the instance of the Commission. It has also been stated that on July 30, 1981, another advertisement No. 4/81 inviting applications for preparing a separate panel for the posts of Principals in non-Government including Government Sponsored Colleges and Training Colleges in West Bengal was published in the "Statesman". In the said advertisement two numbers of probable vacancies are shown against the District of Hooghly. This has been annexed as Annexure 'D' to the petition. This advertisement, it has been stated, has been made in disregard of the claim of the petitioner and also to deprive him of the benefit of the selection and to disregard his claim for being appointed to the post of Principal by the said Commission. It has been submitted that the West Bengal College Service Commission comprising of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 has been dealing with the public in the matter of giving jobs and it cannot act arbitrarily and at its sweet will and every activity of such authority being a wing of the Government has a public element in it and it must therefore be informed with reason and guided by public interest. The West Bengal College Service Commission, being a wing of the Government cannot act arbitrarily and in disregard of the proposed norms and standards. It has been further submitted that the failure and for refusal on the part of the said Commission to recommend his name for the said College is arbitrary, without any reason and/or justification and as such violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been further submitted that the failure and for refusal on the part of the said Commission to recommend his name for the said College is arbitrary, without any reason and/or justification and as such violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been further submitted that such failure and/or refusal is opposed to public interest and there cannot be any justification for depriving the best candidate the privilege of serving the College of his choice. It has also been stated that the demand for justice as mentioned in Annexure 'C' to the petition was duly made and the same was denied as no reply was given to the same. 3. On those aforesaid grounds the instant writ application was moved before this Court on 11th August, 1981. A Rule was issued and an interim order was made restraining the respondents from making any appointment to the post of Principal of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly for three weeks from that day with liberty to pray for extension of the interim order on that application with notice to the respondents. 4. Thereafter, on 25th January, 1982, an application was filed for vacating and/or variation or modification of the said ad interim order of injunction on behalf of the respondent No. 10, Dr. Jayanta Kumar Banerjee stating, inter alia, that he was selected by the said Commission and his name was duly forwarded for appointment as Principal of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly by the said Commission its letter dated 29th July, 1981. It has also been stated therein that in by accordance with the recommendation of the said Commission he was appointed temporarily as Principal of the said College by the President the Governing Body of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure 'B' to the petition. It has also been stated that after the said letter of appointment the petitioner joined the post in terms thereof, one Dr. Baidyanath Mukherjee moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Hon'ble Court and obtained the aforesaid order of injunction which was communicated to him by petitioner's Advocate on 18th August, 1981 along with a copy of the petition of motion. Baidyanath Mukherjee moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Hon'ble Court and obtained the aforesaid order of injunction which was communicated to him by petitioner's Advocate on 18th August, 1981 along with a copy of the petition of motion. It has been submitted that there was no illegalities and/or irregularities committed either by the said Commission or by the Governing Body of the said Mahavidyalaya in the matter of selection, empanelment and appointment of the respondent No. 10 as the Principal and as such the petitioner of the writ petition has no right, title or interest to challenge the said selection of respondent No. 10. It was therefore prayed that the interim order of injunction which was granted by this Court should be vacated. 5. Mr. Samir Kumar Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 10, stated before this Court that he did not intend to file any separate affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition and the said application for vacating the said interim order be treated as an affidavit-in-opposition to the same. This prayer of Mr. Ghosh was allowed by an order dated 1st of September, 1982. 6. An affidavit-in-opposition has been sworn in by the petitioner himself on 29th March, 1982. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit it has been stated that though the petitioner was placed at the top of the list of selected candidates for appointments as Principals in different non-Government College including Government-Sponsored-Colleges yet in clear discrimination by the respondents he was not recommended and he was not appointed for the post of Principal of the B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, but the name of the respondent No. 10 whose position was much below in the said selection list, was illegally recommended for appointment as the Principal in the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly disregarding the right and claim of the writ petitioner to be appointed in the said post according to his preference of area of posting as invited in the advertisement. It has been further stated in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit that the alleged letter of appointment, Annexure 'B' to the application for vacating the interim order, appears to be a procured one and issued privately to the respondent No. 10 which will appear from the letter dated 18th August, 1981 written by the respondent No.9, Ashokendu Roy, President of the Governing Body of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya. It has been further stated that the said letter does not contain any memo (official outgoing number) and it is learnt from the enquiry that no meeting of the Governing Body of the said college was held prior to 13th of August, 1981 in which the resolution was taken appointing the respondent No. 10 as the Principal of the said college. The said letter of appointment is also absolutely vague. It has also been stated that the letter was handed over by the respondent No. 9 personally in his own college and not issued from the office of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya and the said letter was procured hurriedly to by-pass this Hon'ble Court's order. The respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have been called upon by the petitioner to produce the resolution books of the meeting of the Governing Body at the time of the hearing of the application. It has been stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that the letter dated 11th August, 1981 written to the petitioner's Advocate containing the interim order served in the office of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna on 12th of August, 1981 and to by-pass the said interim order the respondent No.9, Ashokendu Roy issued the impugned letter of appointment from his own college and not from the office of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya which will be clear from the letter dated 18th August, 1981 (Annexure 'D' to the said application for variation). It has therefore been submitted that the interim order issued by this Court should not be vacated or modified. 7. An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 sworn by one, Sri Badal Krishna Chowdhury, Secretary of the West Bengal College Service Commission on 13th of August, 1982 was filed. It has therefore been submitted that the interim order issued by this Court should not be vacated or modified. 7. An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 sworn by one, Sri Badal Krishna Chowdhury, Secretary of the West Bengal College Service Commission on 13th of August, 1982 was filed. It has been stated in paragraph 6 controverting the statements in paragraph 8 of the writ application that preference for a particular post (Principal in the instant case) in a particular college (Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya in the instant case) is totally uncalled for. The prerogative for selecting a suitable candidate for a particular post in a particular college is entrusted to the West Bengal College Service Commission, vide section 7(1)(i) of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act and not to any candidate for empanelment for any particular vacancy in a particular non-Government college including the Government-Sponsored-Colleges, according to his preference of area of service. It has been stated that when this fact was pointed out to the petitioner at the time of interview before the said Commission the petitioner revised his preference under his signature. A copy of the revised preference has been annexed as Annexure 'A' to the affidavit-in-opposition. In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit it has been denied that the petitioner was placed at the top of the list as alleged or at all. It has been stated that the petitioner's harping on his invalid preference which was subsequently revised by himself on 7.4.1981, which alone was taken cognizance of by the said Commission, is pointless. It has been denied that the name of the petitioner will not be sent to any other College as he has been serving as Principal of the Banwarilal Bhalotia College, Asansol, as alleged or at all. It has been also stated that the said Commission took no such decision at any stage and has recommended a number of serving Principals including the petitioner for several colleges. It has been denied that the same is arbitrary or contrary to the terms of advertisement or in violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged or at all. It has also been denied that the said Commission is depriving the petitioner of the benefit of selection or of posting on grounds extraneous to the terms of the advertisement as alleged or at all. It has also been denied that the said Commission is depriving the petitioner of the benefit of selection or of posting on grounds extraneous to the terms of the advertisement as alleged or at all. It has been stated that the petitioner has been duly recommended on 5.12.1981 for a post of Principal in accordance with his revised preference dated 7.4.81 which is the only valid one in that respect. In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit it has been denied that the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are making arbitrary discrimination in the matter of selection and recommendation of the name of the petitioner although the petitioner has been selected or placed at the top of the list as alleged or at all. It has been stated that the said Commission does not recognize the claim of the petitioner for the post of Principal of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, for the reason stated hereinbefore and as such the question of superseding of a non-existing claim does not arise. It has also been stated that no discrimination has been made as the petitioner did not come first in the selection list. It has also been denied that the appointment is being made arbitrarily or the said respondent Nos. 3 to 8 have been influenced by some extraneous considerations neither warranted by law nor relevant for the purpose as alleged or at all. It has been denied that there cannot be any reason or justification for not giving effect to the preference of the petitioner when according to the selection made by the Commission itself the petitioner was placed at the top of the selection list or panel as alleged or at all. In paragraph 11 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner goes on repeating his false claim of topping the list at museum. It has been stated that the West Bengal College Service Commission prepared a panel containing the names of those candidates who were found fit for recommendation for the posts of Principal in various Colleges on the basis of selection made by interviewing the applicants. It has been further stated that the petitioner has been given a recommendation in due time in accordance with his revised preference as already stated hereinbefore. It has been further stated that the petitioner has been given a recommendation in due time in accordance with his revised preference as already stated hereinbefore. In paragraph 12 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the West Bengal College Service Commission acted properly in accordance with law by giving appointment to the respondent No. 10 to the said Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly. The deponent has denied that the failure or refusal on the post of the said Commission to recommend his name for the said College is arbitrary or without any reason or justification or the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as alleged or at all. The statement made in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 have been affirmed as true to the knowledge of the deponent, Badal Krishna Chowdhury, Secretary, West Bengal College Service Commission. It may be mentioned in this connection that this affidavit-in-opposition was filed after the application for variation of the interim order was heard and summarily rejected and the interim order was extended till the disposal of the Rule. 8. An affidavit-in-reply sworn by the petitioner on 17th of August, 1982, has been filed. It has been stated in paragraph 3(A) of the said affidavit that the deponent, Sri Badal Krishna Chowdhury, is not a member of the West Bengal College Service Commission and as such he had nothing and could not have anything to do with regard to the selection of the petitioner and other candidates for the different posts of Principals in different sponsored colleges. The said deponent cannot therefore claim to be competent to affirm this affidavit nor can he verify some of the statements made in the said affidavit as true to his knowledge as he has purported to have done. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit it has been denied that the preference for a particular post (Principal in the instant case) in a particular college (Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna in the instant case) is totally uncalled for. It has been also denied that the prerogative of selecting a suitable candidate for a particular post in a particular College is entrusted with the West Bengal College Service Commission, vide section 7(ii) of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act and not to any candidate for empanelment as alleged or at all. It has been also denied that the prerogative of selecting a suitable candidate for a particular post in a particular College is entrusted with the West Bengal College Service Commission, vide section 7(ii) of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act and not to any candidate for empanelment as alleged or at all. It has been further stated that it is wholly incorrect to state and suggest that Annexure 'A' to the said affidavit is a revised preference submitted by him under his signature when it was pointed out to him that he cannot claim to have any prerogative of selecting any particular College. On the contrary Annexure 'A' of the said affidavit was a form which was handed over to each and every candidate and each such candidate was required to fill up the form at the time of interview before the said Commission. The said form was submitted not by way of revision of preference already indicated in the application but merely by way of compliance with a formality. It has been stated that the petitioner had indicated his first preference for the District of Hooghly and as such the said Commission was under an obligation to give effect to the said preference if his merit position permitted the same. It has been further stated that the West Bengal College Service Commission has manifestly proceeded upon irrelevant extraneous considerations and have arbitrarily departed from the very reasonable procedure and the bona fide standard according to which they professed to act. It has also been stated that the Commission has not disclosed any reason or any justification for not giving effect to his preference and for posting respondent No. 10 to the said College. It has been further indicated by him the area of service as the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna (hereinafter referred to as the said College), District of Hooghly or any other place nearer to his permanent residence in the said application before the West Bengal College Service Commission as this preference was also asked for in the advertisement inviting application inserted in the Statesman dated January 13, 1981 by the West Bengal College Service Commission. It has been stated that according to the available information, the petitioner was placed above the respondent No. 10, Dr. It has been stated that according to the available information, the petitioner was placed above the respondent No. 10, Dr. Jayanta Banerjee and possibly at the top of the panel prepared by the said College Service Commission according to merit and there being a vacancy in the post of Principal of the said College he has a right that his name should be recommended by the said Commission for the post of Principal. It has been further stated in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit-in-reply that as the petitioner was serving as Principal of the Banwarilal Bhalotia College, Asansol, until after the expiry of four months from the date of issue of the Rule the name of the petitioner was not sent to any other College. It has been submitted that this is arbitrary and contrary to the terms of advertisement and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It has been submitted that the said Commission is depriving the petitioner of the benefit of selection or of posting on arbitrary grounds and on grounds which are extraneous to the terms of the advertisement. It has also been stated that 4 months after the issuance of the aforesaid Rule the name of the petitioner was recommended for the post of Principal in a College at Chittaranjan which is far away from Asansol and further away from his residence and which is a smaller college as the number of students are much less and as such there was no scope of getting higher scale of pay by him. It has been further stated that this college is not within the Hooghly District the preference for which was given by him as supplementary to the original preference and this clearly shows the mala fide attitude or the said Commission of putting him into trouble. The petitioner called upon the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 to produce the entire records including the assessment and evaluation sheet or sheets of all successful candidates and the list prepared by the said Commission before this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing of the Rule. In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are making arbitrary discrimination in the matter of selection and recommendation of the name of the petitioner although the petitioner has been selected and placed at the top of the list. In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are making arbitrary discrimination in the matter of selection and recommendation of the name of the petitioner although the petitioner has been selected and placed at the top of the list. It has also been stated that the said Commission in their affidavit has intentionally refrained from stating what is the exact position of himself, i.e. the petitioner, and of the respondent No. 10 in the panel prepared by them and they were also silent about the marks secured by the petitioner and the respondent No. 10 in the individual assessment sheet and also the area of preference given by the respondent No. 10. It has been stated that the said Commission being a Public Authority was under a duty to disclose the relevant facts to promote the cause of justice but unfortunately the said Commission for dubious reasons and to defeat the claim of the petitioner is not placing the relevant facts before this Hon'bIe Court. These are all the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply. 9. M. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged in the first place that the purported order of appointment made by the President of the Governing Body of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly on 13th of August, 1981 on the basis of the recommendations made by the West Bengal College Service Commission appointing the respondent No. 10, Dr. Jayanta Banerjee as Principal of the said College is wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioner having occupied a much higher position than that of the respondent No. 10 in the merit-list prepared by the West Bengal College Service Commission after taking interviews of all the candidates including the petitioner and the respondent No. 10 is entitled to be recommended before any recommendation is made by the said Commission for appointing respondent No. 10 as the Principal in the said College. It has also been submitted in this connection that in the matter of public employment it is incumbent on the West Bengal College Service Commission which a public body to act fairly and reasonably without being guided by any extraneous consideration. It has also been submitted in this connection that in the matter of public employment it is incumbent on the West Bengal College Service Commission which a public body to act fairly and reasonably without being guided by any extraneous consideration. The College Service Commission is under an obligation to act in a manner which conforms to the principle of equal treatment in the matter of public employment sworn of capriciousness, whims and unreasonableness. It has been next contended by Mr. Mukherjee that the said College Service Commission is not vested with any prerogative to act according to its own whims, caprice and sweet will and pleasure divorced from reasons, fairness and equal treatment in the matter of public employment. It has been next contended by Mr. Mukherjee that in the advertisement published on 13th January, 1981 in the 'Statesman' it has been specifically provided in Item No. 11 of the said advertisement, 'preference of area of service'. The petitioner in his application before the said College Service Commission specifically mentioned his preference for his area of service as B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachune, Hooghly or any other college nearer to his permanent residence. At the time of interview the petitioner was supplied with a form to mention his preference in respect of place of posting. Similar forms were also supplied to all other candidates who appeared for the interview before the said College Service Commission. In the said form the petitioner gave his first preference for posting in Hooghly and second preference for posting in Burdwan and third preference in Calcutta. This will be evident from the Annexure 'A' to the affidavit-in-opposition sworn on 13th August, 1982 by Sri Badal Krishna Choudhury, Secretary, West Bengal College Service Commission. It has been urged by Mr. Mukherjee that it has been wrongly stated in the paragraph 7 of the said affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner had been duly recommended on 5.12.81 for the post of Principal according to his revised preference dated 7.4.1981 which is the only valid one in that respect. It has been urged by Mr. Mukherjee that it has been wrongly stated in the paragraph 7 of the said affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner had been duly recommended on 5.12.81 for the post of Principal according to his revised preference dated 7.4.1981 which is the only valid one in that respect. It has been submitted that this averment in the said affidavit-in-opposition which has been affirmed as true to the knowledge of the deponent is wholly misleading and incorrect inasmuch as the petitioner has exercised his preference for being posted as the Principal of the Dejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya or to any other college nearer to his permanent residence in the District of Hooghly. The recommendation that was purported to be made in favour of the petitioner by the said College Service Commission for being appointed as Principal to a college at Chittaranjan is not in accordance with the preference given by him but contrary to the area of service mentioned in his application before the College Service Commission as well as the preference given by him on 7.4.81. The petitioner being placed much above the respondent No. 10 in the merit-list prepared by the West Bengal College Service Commission it is incumbent on the Commission to recommend the name of the petitioner first for appointment as Principal to B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly in accordance with the preference given by him and his name should have been recommended prior to the recommendation of the name of the respondent No. 10 whose position is much below that of the petitioner in the merit-list. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that the name of the respondent No. 10 was recommended some time in July, 1981 whereas the petitioner's name was recommended on 5th December, 1981, i.e., about 4 months after the issuance of the instant Rule on 13th of August, 1981. It has therefore been submitted that the impugned order of appointment of respondent No. 10 as the Principal of B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly as well as the recommendation of his name to the said College for such appointment by the West Bengal College Service Commission are illegal and bad being violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As such, it has been submitted that the aforesaid orders are liable to be quashed and set aside and in the facts and circumstances of the case it is fit and proper that a Writ of Mandamus should be issued commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as the Principal of B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly. It has also been submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that the said College Service Commission has acted mala fide and in arbitrary exercise of its discretion in recommending the name of respondent No. 10 to the B. N. Mahavidyalaya for appointment as Principal in utter disregard of the claim of the petitioner who occupied a much higher place than that of the respondent No. 10 in order of merit in the panel prepared by the West Bengal College Service Commission and also because of the fact that the petitioner mentioned his area of service as B. N. Mahavidyalaya or any other place nearer to his residence in the District of Hooghly where as the respondent No. 10 did not mention either this college or any other college in the District of Hooghly as his first preference of posting. Some decisions have been cited at the Bar in this connection. 10. Mr. A. P. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 8, that is, the members of the West Bengal College Service Commission and Secretary of the said Commission, has submitted that no legal right is attached to the preference mentioned nor does it cast any obligation on the West Bengal College Service Commission to recommend a candidate who has been selected for being appointed as Principal to the area of his own choice mentioned by him. It has also been submitted in this connection that there no right accrues in favour of the petitioner simply because of mentioning the area of choice of service in the advertisement inviting applications for selection and empanelment for being appointed for the post of Principals in non-Government Colleges including Government-Sponsored-Colleges which can be claimed by any selected candidate for being appointed in the area of his choice or in the college mentioned by him as his first preference. It has been next contended by Mr. It has been next contended by Mr. Mukherjee that it is the absolute discretion of the College Service Commission and also it is the prerogative of the Commission to recommend the name of the selected candidate to any college or any place in accordance with the urea of preference exercised by him. It has also been submitted that it is an abuse of the process of Court to move the instant writ application inasmuch as neither any statutory right nor any constitutional right of the petitioner has been infringed by the impugned order of appointment made in favour of the respondent No. 10 and more so because the petitioner's name has been recommended for appointment as Principal of a College in Chittaranjan on 5th of December, 1981. There is no illegality nor any arbitrariness, capriciousness, unreasonableness or inequality in the matter of recommending the name of the petitioner for being appointed as Principal in the college at Chittaranjan which is also one of his area of preference. It has been further submitted by Mr. Cilatterjee that it has been incorrectly stated by the petitioner that his name tops the list of successful candidates in the panel prepared by the West Bengal College Service Commission in order of merit. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that on a scrutiny of the panel it would appear that the petitioner's name was in the 4th position in the panel and as such the argument that the petitioner's claim to be appointed in the said B. N. Mahavidyalaya on the basis of his choice cannot be sustained. It has been also submitted that the West Bengal College Service Commission was not guided by any extraneous consideration in recommending the name of the respondent No. 10 before recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment as Principal in the B. N. Mahavidyalaya and the decision cited by Mr. Mukherjee on this score can have no application. 11. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 10 first of all has submitted that there had been no demand for justice and as such the application for a Writ of Mandamus is not maintainable. It has also been submitted by Mr. Mukherjee on this score can have no application. 11. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 10 first of all has submitted that there had been no demand for justice and as such the application for a Writ of Mandamus is not maintainable. It has also been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the petitioner did not occupy the first position in order of merit in the panel prepared by the said College Service Commission and as such the statement in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that according to the available information that the petitioner was at the top of the list as a false statement and the same amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground the instant rule was obtained by deceiving the Court. This disentitles the petitioner to get any relief in the instant writ application. The decision of (1) Rex v. Kensigton Income Tax Commissioner, in (1917) 1 KB 486 has been cited. It has been next submitted that the aforesaid statement has been affirmed as true to his knowledge but nothing has been stated wherefrom the knowledge has been deprived. This statement, therefore, is a mere hearsay statement and no legal right flows from such hearsay statement and as such for the violation of such alleged right the instant writ application is not maintainable and it is liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. It is relevant to state before proceeding to consider the merits of the various contentions raised on behalf of the parties that some of these contentions were heard at length at the time of hearing of the application for vacating the interim order passed by this Court on 11th August, 1981 and an order was made by this Court on 29th July, 1982. It has been urged by Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Advocate, that the writ application is not maintainable as there was no demand of justice made by the petitioner before moving this Court. It has been urged by Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Advocate, that the writ application is not maintainable as there was no demand of justice made by the petitioner before moving this Court. This contention was raised also at the time of hearing of the application for vacating the interim order and this Court held that in the facts and circumstances of the case it could not be held that the petitioner had not made any demand of justice and for this technical plea the petitioner's writ application or the prayer for the interim order could not be rejected in limine even though there is merit in the writ application. It has been held : "In my opinion, all these facts taken together clearly amount to demand of justice, and no reply being given the natural conclusion is that justice has been denied. Therefore, I am of opinion that the prerequisites to demand of justice has been in substance duly complied with." It may be pertinent to refer in this connection that the petitioner on coming to know that the name of the respondent No. 10 has been recommended as the Principal of B. N. Mahavidyalaya for appointment as Principal of that college in preference to the claim of the petitioner though he occupied a position much above that of the respondent No. 10 in order of merit in the panel prepared by the West Bengal College Service Commission, wrote a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Secretary, Department of Education, requesting to exercise their good offices so that justice may not be denied to him and his name may duly be recommended for appointment as the Principal of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, according to his preference for the same. A copy of this application was annexed as Annexure 'C' to the writ application. No reply was given to the same and as such, justice has been denied to the petitioner. It has also been submitted by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee that the respondent No. 10 who is a private respondent is not competent to raise this objection as the respondent Nos. 3 to 8, that is, Government respondents are not agitating this question. It has also been submitted by Mr. It has also been submitted by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee that the respondent No. 10 who is a private respondent is not competent to raise this objection as the respondent Nos. 3 to 8, that is, Government respondents are not agitating this question. It has also been submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that even if it is assumed for the argument's sake that there has not been a proper demand and denial of justice the petitioner apart from praying for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus has also prayed for a Writ in the nature of Certiorari which does not require as 'prerequisite' to make a demand of justice. Therefore, this writ application is maintainable in this jurisdiction even if the extreme view was taken that there was no demand of justice made by the petitioner. This Court by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari has got ample jurisdiction not only to quash and set aside the impugned orders complained of but also it can give appropriate orders or directions to the respondents for appointing the petitioner as the Principal of this college inasmuch as nothing remains to be done or considered by the West Bengal College Service Commission after the panel has been prepared from the selected candidates by the Commission. This submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, in my opinion, is also of great substance and I am also constrained to hold that this writ application is maintainable for issuance of the Writ in the nature of Certiorari and other appropriate writ or direction even if it is found that no demand of justice has been made by the petitioner. But as I have stated earlier that while deciding the application for variation of the interim order I have already held that there has been a demand of justice and no reply being given to the letter, Annexure 'C' sent by the petitioner to the Secretary, Education Department, the natural conclusion is that justice has been denied. The other preliminary objection that was raised by Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 10 is that there has been a suppression of material fact which tantamounts to deception of the Court in the matter of obtaining a rule and interim order. It has been submitted by Mr. The other preliminary objection that was raised by Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 10 is that there has been a suppression of material fact which tantamounts to deception of the Court in the matter of obtaining a rule and interim order. It has been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that this alone will disentitle the petitioner to get any relief and this writ application is liable to be rejected on this ground. Suppression, according to Oxford English Dictionary, Illustrated, 3rd Edn., Vol. II, means :–– "The action of putting down, as by power or authority. (b) Withholding or withdrawal from publication; prevention or prohibition of the circulation of a book or writing." (1) Suppress : "To 'suppress' anything is to put a stop to it when actually existing, and does not extend to preventing it by suppressing what may lead to it." (2) Fraud : "Fraud or suppression or CONCEALMENT" of a MATERIAL FACT on which to revoke an order of release under Bankruptcy Act, 1882 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), section 82(3) (see now Bankruptcy Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5 c. 59), section 93(3), must be such suppression or concealment as has in it some element of fraud (per Wright, J. Re : Harr's, case (1899)2 Q. B. 97)." 13. In order to consider this submission it is necessary to consider the relevant averments made in paragraph 9 of the writ application which is as follows : "After the said interview your petitioner came to learn that the panel of selected candidates for appointment as Principals in different non-Government colleges has already been prepared and according to available information he was placed at the top of the list. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit this statement has been sworn as true to the knowledge of the deponent, that is, the petitioner himself. This averment plainly and simply means that the petitioner has come to know from available information that he has been placed at the top of the list of selected candidates in order of merit. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit this statement has been sworn as true to the knowledge of the deponent, that is, the petitioner himself. This averment plainly and simply means that the petitioner has come to know from available information that he has been placed at the top of the list of selected candidates in order of merit. The question is whether the words, "according to available information" which have been affirmed as true to his knowledge can be stated to be a suppression of material facts and intentional deception exercised in order to persuade the Court to grant relief by way of obtaining a rule and an interim order from this Court on this application. A statement in order to be a suppression of material facts must have the following requisites : (i) the petitioner who makes the statement is fully award that the statement is false and he does not believe that the statement is true or correct; (ii) a statement must relate to a material fact, and (iii) the petitioner has made the statement with full knowledge that it is false in order to deceive the Court. In the present case the petitioner who appeared at the interview for being empanelled for appointment to the post of Principal is non-Government including Government-Sponsored-Colleges has been undoubtedly selected. The selection list was not published and as such it is not possible for the petitioner to know with certainty what is his exact position in the panel prepared by the West Bengal College Service Commission. In these circumstances the statement that has been made by the petitioner stated hereinbefore in my opinion is a very well-guarded statement and under any circumstance it may not be termed as a false statement intentionally made to practice deception on the Court and to mislead the Court with the sole object of having relief on the basis of such deceptive statement from this Court. Moreover, it appears that the College Service Commission for whom Mr. Chatterjee, learned Standing Counsel, appears though filed an affidavit-in-opposition merely stating in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit is that the deponent, Badal Krishna Choudhury, Secretary, West Bengal Service Commission, on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 that the petitioner was placed at the top of the list as alleged or at all. This statement has been affirmed as true to his knowledge. 3 to 8 that the petitioner was placed at the top of the list as alleged or at all. This statement has been affirmed as true to his knowledge. It has not been disclosed in the said affidavit-in-opposition what positions were exactly occupied by the petitioner and the respondent No. 10 respectively in the panel prepared by the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. It is also to be noted in this connection that the West Bengal College Service Commission for which Mr. Chatterjee, learned Standing Counsel, appears, has not also specifically stated in what positions actually the names of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 10 do appear in the panel. At one time Mr. Chatterjee said that the petitioner's position is No. 2 and subsequently it was stated that his position is No.4. There is no dispute, however, that the petitioner occupied a position higher than the position of the respondent No. 10 in order of merit. In these circumstances and also in the absence of any pleading that the petitioner knew fully well his position in the panel prepared by the West Bengal College Service Commission it is wholly inappropriate to term the aforesaid statement made in paragraph 9 of the said petition as a misrepresentation of facts and a material suppression of relevant facts with the sole purpose of deceiving the Court. In my opinion, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, I am not inclined to hold that the statements as made in paragraph 9 of the petition amount to material suppression of facts and the same also amount to deception practiced on the Court to obtain a rule and an interim order. The aforesaid decision in (1917) 1 K. B. 485 at pages 495-96 where it has been observed as follows :–– "Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule Nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion, a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and they have been stated in the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But, if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit." The above decision was considered by Bhagwati, J. in (2) Manibhai Hathibhai Patel v. C. W. E. Arbuthnot, AIR 1947 Bombay 413 where it has been observed :–– "In an application for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari or Prohibition which are high prerogative writs, it is incumbent on the petitioners to state all material facts, and if the petitioners are guilty of suppression or non-statement of material facts, the petition cannot be maintained. Where, however, the suppression or the non-statement or material facts in the petition was due to no intention on the part of the petitioners to mislead or deceive the Court, but it was a result of inadvertence or want of appreciation of the true legal position on the part of their legal advisors, the Court would not be inclined to inflict on the petitioners the direct consequences which are laid down in the judgment of the Appeal Court in (1917) 1 K. B. 486, but would allow the petition to be amended." 14. The facts of these cases do not apply to the facts of the present case. This contention, therefore, is, in my opinion, devoid of any merit whatsoever and so the same is overruled. 15. The most vital question on which the decision of this case hinges upon is whether the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, that is, the members of the West Bengal College Service Commission, have acted arbitrarily, unreasonably and capriciously and on extraneous considerations in recommending the name of the respondent No. 10, Dr. 15. The most vital question on which the decision of this case hinges upon is whether the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, that is, the members of the West Bengal College Service Commission, have acted arbitrarily, unreasonably and capriciously and on extraneous considerations in recommending the name of the respondent No. 10, Dr. Jayanta Banerjee in preference to that of the petitioner to the B. N. Mahavidyalaya for being appointed as Principal of the said College. The West Bengal College Service Commission prior to the selection of the candidates for preparation of panel for recommending their names for appointment as Principals in non-Government including Government Sponsored Colleges have published in the Statesman at its issue dated January 13, 1981 an advertisement, being No. I. C. A. 133 (7/81), inviting applications from candidates for selection of Principals for vacancies in non-Government including Government Sponsored Colleges. In the said advertisement it has been specifically mentioned in column No. 11 as follows : "preference of area of service". The petitioner submitted an application mentioning therein his preference for his area of service to Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly or in any other place nearer to his permanent residence. The petitioner was called for interview on 7th April, 1981 and at the time of interview he was asked by supplying a form by the West Bengal College Service Commission to indicate his choice of posting by putting tick marks against one or more districts of his choice. The petitioner by putting the tick marks indicated his first preference of choice as regards posting in the district of Hooghly, second preference in the district of Burdwan and third preference in Calcutta. This will be evident from Annexure 'A' to the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by Sri Badal Krishna Choudhury, Secretary, West Bengal College Service Commission, the respondent No.8, on 13 August, 1982. It has been stated in the writ application that the petitioner came to know from available information that he was placed at the top of the list but unfortunately he was not being appointed to the post of Principal in the B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly in accordance with his choice of posting whereas as the persons placed below him were given appointment in different colleges. It has also been further stated that the respondent Nos. It has also been further stated that the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 have taken steps to recommend the name of the respondent No. 10 for the post of Principal of the B. N. Mahavidyalaya in suppression of the claim of the petitioner. It has been alleged that the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are thus making arbitrary discrimination in the matter of selection and recommendation of the name of the petitioner while the petitioner has been placed at the top of the list. It has been further alleged that the said appointment of the respondent No. 10 is being made arbitrarily by the West Bengal College Service Commission being influenced by some extraneous considerations neither warranted by law nor relevant for the purpose. It has been further submitted that there is no plausible reason or justification for not giving effect to the preference of the petitioner then according to selection made by the said Commission, the petitioner was placed at the top of the selection list or panel. It has also been submitted that the purported recommendation of the name of the respondent No. 10 for being appointed as Principal of the Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya and also the letter of appointment issued by the respondent No. 9, Ashokendu Roy, President, Governing Body, Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly is wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principle of equality in the matter of public employment as provided in the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has also been submitted in this connection that the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 constituting the West Bengal College Service Commission while dealing with the appointment of public in the matter of giving jobs cannot act arbitrarily and whimsically and/or capriciously. Every activity of such authority being a wing of the Government has a public element in it and it must therefore be performed with reason and guided by public interest. It has been therefore submitted that the impugned orders of the West Bengal College Service Commission recommending the name of the respondent No. 10 and also the order of appointment made by the respondent No.9 in accordance with the recommendation of the West Bengal College Service Commission are wholly illegal, arbitrary and capricious and violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such they are liable to be quashed and set aside. It will not be out of place to mention in this connection that this question was agitated before this Court while the application for vacating the interim order is being considered by this Court. It has been held by this Court that it is arbitrary that a person who has been selected in order of merit at the top of the list of the selected candidates will be denied consideration of his case for appointment as Principal and others below him will be given preference. It was also observed as follows :–– "If this is not arbitrariness, if this is a sample of equality, I fail to understand what is discrimination, what is inequality, Article 14 of the Constitution and also Article 16 of the Constitution of India which arc embodied in Part III of the Constitution the fundamental rights of the citizens that there must be equality and fair treatment in the matter of employment in Government Offices, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness is the other name of inequality which is contrary to the spirit embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the argument that because the petitioner's name stood in order of merit in the first position his name should be passed over, should be overlooked and other candidates will be recommended for appointment by the said College Service Commission. The College Service Commission is a statutory body. It has been formed, I think, with the purpose of fair and proper and not for arbitrary selection of candidates for being appointed as Principals, and that is the spirit and sole object which played in the mind of the Legislature while enacting the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 1978. Therefore, the refusal to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment is undoubtedly an act of arbitrariness, an act not justified by reason nor justified by the principle of equal treatment in the matter of public employment. Statutory body has been given powers to select candidates, but the power is to be exercised in a manner which is justifiable, which is reasonable which is not tained with unfairness, unreasonableness or arbitrariness". 16. Of course, this finding was arrived at because the averments made in the writ application was not controverted by any rejoinder made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 16. Of course, this finding was arrived at because the averments made in the writ application was not controverted by any rejoinder made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, that is, the members of the West Bengal College Service Commission. Afterwards, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on the 13th of August, 1982 sworn by Sri Badal Krishna Choudhury, Secretary of the West Bengal College Service Commission and pursuant to the order made by this Court on 2nd September, 1982, the Xerox copy of the evaluation sheets as well as the Xerox copy of the panel prepared by the West Bengal College Service Commission and also the requisite slips submitted by the Chittaranjan College and B. N. Mahavidyalaya have been filed with an affidavit sworn by the respondent No.8 on 7th September, 1982. In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit-in-opposition the averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ application to the effect that the statement that according to available information the petitioner was placed at the top of the list was merely denied. But it has not been stated specifically what is the position of the petitioner in the panel in order of merit. The panel that has been prepared and signed by the members of the Commission on 17th June, 1981 merely shows the name of the selected candidates but unfortunately the names of the selected candidates were not serially arranged in order of merit. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel at first stated that the petitioner's position in order of merit in the selection list is No. 2. But subsequently submitted on being instructed by his clients that his position is No.4. I cannot but comment on the preparation of the panel after the interview was taken of all the candidates that the panel should have been prepared in order of merit in order to enable this Court to know clearly what were the positions occupied by the petitioner and respondent No. 10, Dr Jayanta Banerjee respectively in order of merit in the said panel. However, there is no dispute, on the other hand it is admitted that the petitioner's position in the panel is much above the position of the respondent No. 10 in order of merit. However, there is no dispute, on the other hand it is admitted that the petitioner's position in the panel is much above the position of the respondent No. 10 in order of merit. It also appears that the petitioner gave his first preference of posting in the B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly or in any other place nearer to his residence whereas the respondent No. 10 gave his first preference for posting not in Hooghly but in Calcutta. It also appears from the evaluation sheets prepared by the West Bengal College Service Commission on 7th April, 1981 that the petitioner was given more marks both by the said College Service Commission as well as by the expert of Burdwan University than what were awarded to respondent No. 10, Dr. Jayanta Banerjee by them. Therefore, admittedly on the basis of the evaluation sheets of the panel that has been prepared by the West Bengal College Service Commission and filed before this Court as Annexure 'A' to the affidavit sworn by the respondent No. 8 on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 that the petitioner occupied a much higher position in order of merit than that of the respondent No. 10. As such it is fit and proper that the principles of reasonableness, fairness and as well as equality of treatment in the matter of public employment as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India demand that before recommending the name of the respondent No. 10 to the B. N. Mahavidyalaya for being appointed as Principal of that college the petitioner's name should have been recommended for appointment in that college in view of consideration of his merit position and also in consideration of his choice of posting as specially mentioned in conformity with the requirement embodied Item No.11 of the said advertisement inviting applications for appearing as candidate for posts of Principals before the College Service Commission as well as indicating his first preference for appointment in any college in Hooghly District at the time of interview in the prescribed form supplied by the said College Service Commission. It has been stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the respondent No.8, Badal Krishna Choudhury on behalf of the respondent Nos. It has been stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the respondent No.8, Badal Krishna Choudhury on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 that the preference for a particular post (Principal in the instant case) in a particular college (Bejoy Narayan Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna in the instant case) is totally uncalled for as the prerogative of selecting a suitable candidate for a particular post in a particular college is entrusted to the West Bengal College Service Commission vide, section 7(1)(i) of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 1978 and not to any candidate for empanelment for many vacancies in different non-Government Colleges, including Government-Sponsored-Colleges. It has been urged by Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior Standing Counsel, that simply because the column in the advertisement prescribing for preference for area of service it does not mean that the College Service Commission is bound to recommend the name of a selected candidate for appointment as Principal according to his preference of area of service and no right can be claimed on its basis. It has been urged further that there is no obligation on the College Service Commission to recommend the name of a particular selected candidate to a college in respect to which he has given his preference for posting. It is the absolute discretion of the Commission to recommend the name of a selected candidate to a college for appointment as the said Commission thinks best. This point was also agitated on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 at the time of hearing of the application for vacating the interim order and this Court observed as follows :–– "The petitioner who is also working as Principal of the Asansol College has given his option and according to the terms of the advertisement, I am constrained to hold, the authorities cannot according to their sweet will and pleasure do away with this requirement which they had laid down in the advertisement aforesaid. Many a decisions have been cited at the Bar by Mr. Mukherjee, but Mr. Chatterjee an eminent Counsel, has stated that those principles are well-known. I will simply repeat this that an Administrative Authority or a Public Authority is bound to comply with the standard which it has laid down while inviting applications for employment to the public place. I cannot but quote a very lucid and terse observation made by Mr. Chatterjee an eminent Counsel, has stated that those principles are well-known. I will simply repeat this that an Administrative Authority or a Public Authority is bound to comply with the standard which it has laid down while inviting applications for employment to the public place. I cannot but quote a very lucid and terse observation made by Mr. Justice Bhagwati in the case of Ramona Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628 at page 1645, paragraph 10. It is in the following terms :–– "It is a well-settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged und it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them." This observation has been made by the learned Judge relying on an observation of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in (3) Vitarelli v. Seaton, (1959) 359 U. S. 535 which is as follows :–– "An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged.........Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed.......... This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword." 17. Undoubtedly as I have stated hereinbefore that the West Bengal College Service Commission in their advertisement stated hereinbefore inviting applications from candidates for the selection for empanelment for appointment of Principals of non-Government Colleges including Government-Sponsored-Colleges it has been specifically mentioned in Item No. 11 that area of choice of service is to be stated. Moreover, at the time of taking interview the petitioner and other candidates including the respondent No. 10 were supplied forms for indicating their order of preference of posting by placing tick marks therein. The petitioner, though he is working as Principal of the Banwarilal Bhalotia College, Asansol, yet he is on the look out for a chance by joining as Principal in any college nearer to his residence and as soon as the advertisement was published he applied giving his preference for his area of service in B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly or in any college nearer to his residence. This option was taken from the candidates not for nothing but in order to enable the College Service Commission to recommend the names of the selected candidates for being appointed as Principals suitably in their respective places of choice according to their order of preference. I am unable to accept the argument of Mr. Chatterjee, learned Standing Council appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 that the aforesaid requirement regarding the choice of the place of posting is of no legal effect and the same does not cast any obligation on the College Service Commission to consider the same and to recommend the name of a selected candidate according to his choice of place of posting. I am also unable to accept the statement as made in the affidavit-in-opposition that it is the prerogative of the Selection Committee for selecting a suitable candidate in a particular post in a particular college and as urged by Mr. Chatterjee I am sorry to point out that our Constitution does not provide for any such special prerogative for the executive or for any Public Authority to exercise its discretion at its own sweet will and pleasure being not guided by reason or by equal opportunity in the matter of public employment as embodied in the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Section 7, sub-section (1), provisos (i) and (ii) of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 1978 (West Bengal Act LXII of 1978) which deals with the functions of the Commission, does not provide for such arbitrary and prerogative power of the Commission in the matter of selection of candidates and in the matter of recommending their names to different colleges for being appointed as Principals. This argument of Mr. Chatterjee is wholly devoid of merit and cannot be accepted and on the contrary it has been repeatedly observed by the Supreme Court that the public authority while giving larges or in providing public employment has to act reasonably, fairly and not capriciously or arbitrarily and for extraneous considerations. It has been observed by Bhagwati, J. in (4) E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 1974 SC 555 at page 583. "Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. It has been observed by Bhagwati, J. in (4) E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 1974 SC 555 at page 583. "Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment which is so vital to the building up of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the Constitution, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a species. Article 16 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination...From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. This view has been reiterated in another decision of (5) Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 at page 1642 paragraph 21 where it has been observed : "It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory; it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration, because that would be denial of equality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically as essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is protected by Article 14 and it must characterize every State action whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law. The State cannot, therefore act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or, otherwise, with a third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm which is rational and non-discriminatory.... ..It must, therefore, follow as a necessary corollary from the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 that though the State is entitled to refuse to enter into relationship with anyone, yet if it does so, it cannot arbitrarily choose any person it likes for entering into such relationship and; discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced, but it must act in conformity with some standard or principle which meets the test of reasonableness and non-discrimination and any departure from such standard or principle would be invalid unless it can be supported or justified on some rational and non-discriminatory ground." In the case of (6) State of West Bengal v. Tapan Kumar Sen, 86 CWN 121 it has been observed that although the State Government has the absolute right in the matter of appointment of Munsifs, it cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously without reasonable ground. Article 234 can not confer a right on the State Government to proceed in a manner violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 18. In the instant case, undoubtedly, as I have stated hereinbefore in order of merit the petitioner occupied a much higher position than that of the respondent No. 10 and as such he is entitled to be considered and to be recommended by the West Bengal College Service Commission for appointment as Principal before any recommendation is made in favour of respondent No. 10 for appointment of Principal to the B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna. It has been clearly stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the respondent No.8, Secretary, West Bengal College Service Commission on 13th August, 1982 that the name of the petitioner was recommended in accordance with the revised preference on 5th December, 1981 for the post of Principal in Deshbandhu Mahavidyalaya, Chittaranjan, Burdwan whereas the name of the respondent No. 10 was recommended for the post of Principal of B. N. Mahavidyalaya some time in August, 1982, that is, long after the recommendation of the name of the respondent No. 10 as Principal and about four and half months after the issuance of this Rule. Furthermore the name of the petitioner was recommended to a college not according to his area of choice of posting which is B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna or in any place nearer to his residence. Therefore, the aforesaid recommendation made by the West Bengal College Service Commission on 5th December, 1981 is illegal and bad being vitiated by arbitrariness, unreasonableness, capriciousness and the said recommendation made by the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, that is, members of the College Service Commission in favour of the respondent No. 10 for being appointed as Principal of the B. N. Mahavidyalaya though he has given his first preference for being appointed in any college at Calcutta in utter disregard of the preference of the place of posting made by the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and is in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore the aforesaid recommendation made by the West Bengal College Service Commission in favour of the respondent No. 10 as well as the appointment that has been given by the respondent Nos. 9 as President of the Governing Body of the college annexed as Annexure 'B' to the application for variation of the interim order which has been treated as affidavit-in-opposition to the writ application cannot be sustained. An affidavit of facts sworn on 7th September, 1982 by Sri Badal Krishna Chowdhury, respondent No.8 on behalf of respondent No.3 to 8 has been filed. This affidavit cannot be taken notice of because the same has been filed after the argument of all the parties were concluded and the case was fixed for judgment. 19. For the reasons aforesaid the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner having succeeded this Rule succeeds and it is made absolute. This affidavit cannot be taken notice of because the same has been filed after the argument of all the parties were concluded and the case was fixed for judgment. 19. For the reasons aforesaid the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner having succeeded this Rule succeeds and it is made absolute. Let a Writ of Mandamus issue commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the recommendation made by the West Bengal College Service Commission in favour of the respondent No. 10 Dr. Jayanta Banerjee for being appointed as Principal of B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna as well as the appointment letter dated 13th August, 1981 issued by the respondent No.9, Ashokendu Roy, President, Governing Body of B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna in favour of the respondent No. 10. Let a Writ of Certiorari issue commanding the respondents to quash, cancel and set aside the impugned recommendation made by the West Bengal College Service Commission in favour of respondent No. 10 for appointing him as Principal of B. N. Mahavidyalaya, Itachuna, Hooghly and also the impugned appointment letter dated 13th August, 1981 issued by the respondent No. 9 annexed as Annexure 'B' to the application for variation of the interim order filed on 25th January, 1982. Let a Writ in the nature of Mandamus issue commanding the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Principal of the said B. N. Mahavidyalaya in accordance with his preference of the place of posting as expressed in his application before the Commission as well as in the form supplied to him at the time of interview. There will be no order as to costs.