JUDGMENT This Civil Order is directed against the Memo No. 2813/G dated 4th October, 1986 and Memo No. 75/G dated 6th January, 1987 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Birbhum. 2. The case of the writ petitioner; inter alia, is that the Director of School Education by his Memo dated 30th January, 1984 sanctioned 2 posts in language group and one in science group for the Taloya High School in the district of Birbhum. The D.I.S. (S.E.), Birbhum, intimated the writ petitioner who is the secretary of the School by Memo dated 9th April, 1984 to appoint one teacher in language group and another in science group with qualification in Physics or Chemistry. Keeping one post reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate. Thereafter the D.I.S. (S.E.) directed the petitioner to appoint one physically handicapped person, but there was no Scheduled Caste candidate in the list of physically handicapped person and, as such, no panel could be prepared with only one candidate. The D.I.S. (S.E.) by Memo dated 16th March, 1985 asked the petitioner to re-advertise in the newspaper about the candidates having B.Sc. (Hons.)/M.Sc. in physics or Chemistry qualification and the advertisement was accordingly made in the Ananda Bazar Patrika" of 3rd May, 1985. Pursuant to the advertisement, only 4 applications were received and only one candidate appeared before the Selection Committee on 26th May, 1985 and, as such, no panel could have been prepared. Thereafter the entire matter was referred to the D.I.S. (S.E.), Birbhum., for declaring the vacancy as unreserved and by Memo dated, 12th December, 1985 the necessary permission was granted on condition that the next vacancy will be filled in by the Scheduled Caste candidate. The writ petitioner after receiving the aforesaid letter from the D.I.S. (S.E.) wrote to the Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Rampurhat, on 31st December, 1985 requesting him to forward a list of suitable candidates having B.Sc. (Hons.) Physics/M.Sc. qualifications preferably trained for the post of science teacher in the said School, and, thereafter, sent a reminder to this effect on 16th January, 1986. On 29th March, 1986 the Employment Officer sent a list of six candidates for the post, but only 2 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee and no panel could be made. (Hons.) Physics/M.Sc. qualifications preferably trained for the post of science teacher in the said School, and, thereafter, sent a reminder to this effect on 16th January, 1986. On 29th March, 1986 the Employment Officer sent a list of six candidates for the post, but only 2 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee and no panel could be made. On 9th April, 1986 the writ petitioner again approached, the Employment Officer for fresh list of candidates and ultimately on 16th May, 1986 the list of 9 candidates were forwarded who appeared before the Selection Committee and at its meeting held on 18th June, 1986 a panel of 3 was made out as under :- 1. Ajit Kumar Paul. 2. Mrityunjoy Sinha. 3. Ram Prasad Mondal. Shri Ajit Kumar Paul secured 55 marks, Shri Mrityunjoy Sinha 50 marks and Shri Ram Prasad Mondal 49 marks. 3. While forwarding the names of 9 candidates by Memo dated 16th May, 1986, the Employment Officer mentioned the qualification of Shri Ajit Kumar Paul only as B.Sc. (Hons.) in Physics. During the interview Shri Ajit Kumar Paul produced his B.Ed. Examination, 1985 Mark Sheet (and not the B.Ed. degree as stated in the writ petition) indicating that he had passed the B.Ed. Examination for 1985 of the University of Calcutta in 2nd class obtaining 584 marks and, as such, the Selection Committee awarded him 10 marks for B.Ed, qualification. Subsequently, by an Identity Card dated 29th August, 1986, the Employment Officer noted his qualification as B.Ed./B.Sc. (Hons) II by virtue of 10 marks given to him by the Selection Committee on B.Ed. qualification, Shri Paul secured the first position in the panel, otherwise he would have been the second. Ultimately the Managing Committee forwarded the said panel to the D.I.S. (S.E.), Birbhum, for approval on 5th July, 1986 upon which the impugned Memos were issued which are under challenge. 4. Mr. Islam, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that 10 marks were very legitimately added by the Selection Committee to Shri Ajit Kumar Paul for having passed the B.Ed. Examination, 1985 of Calcutta University as neither of the two candidates had the said qualification. The Selection Committee accepted the B.Ed. qualification of Shri Paul after being satisfied on production of the original Mark Sheet which was also supplied with a xerox copy of the same. In this connection Mr. Examination, 1985 of Calcutta University as neither of the two candidates had the said qualification. The Selection Committee accepted the B.Ed. qualification of Shri Paul after being satisfied on production of the original Mark Sheet which was also supplied with a xerox copy of the same. In this connection Mr. Islam refers to the case of a teacher Shri Sushil Bhandari of Kanachi High School in the District of Birbhum who at the time of Interview produced his M.A. degree before the Selection Committee and the marks earmarked for this qualification were added to his credit and the panel forwarded by the Managing Committee on the basis of the Selection Committee's report was duly approved by the D.I.S. (S.E) by his Memo dated 17th October, 1985. But a different attitude has been adopted by the D.I.S. (S.E.) in this particular case. Mr. Islam refers the case of (1) Controller of Court of Ward v. G.N. Ghorpade and Ors. reported in AIR 1973 SC page 627 wherein it is made clear that in the absence of any counter-affidavit the High Court had to accept the statement made on affidavit by the petitioner. He also cites the (2) International Airport Authority’s Case reported in AIR 1979 SC page 1628, in support of his contention to bring home the fact that the State cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationships with any person it likes at its sweet will, but its action must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reasons and relevance and doctrine of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and it must be honoured by ensuring fairness and equality of treatment. He rightly contends that in this particular case the D.I.S. (S.E.) has taken a dual attitude by objecting to the addition of 10 marks to Shri Ajit Kumar Paul whereas he had himself given such permission in the case of Sushil Bhandari. 5. No Affidavit-in-Opposition has been filed on behalf of the State Respondents but Mr. Sumitra Dasgupta appearing on behalf of the State Respondents submits that the D.I.S. (S.E.), Birbhum, be directed to verify the genuineness of the Mark Sheet of B.Ed. Examination which was produced before the Selection Committee and upon being satisfied about the genuineness of the Mark Sheet the D.I.S. (S.E.) be directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Sumitra Dasgupta appearing on behalf of the State Respondents submits that the D.I.S. (S.E.), Birbhum, be directed to verify the genuineness of the Mark Sheet of B.Ed. Examination which was produced before the Selection Committee and upon being satisfied about the genuineness of the Mark Sheet the D.I.S. (S.E.) be directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. He very much doubts the authenticity of the B.Ed. Examination Mark Sheet and submits that the D.I.S. (S.E.) should be given an opportunity to scrutinise and ascertain the truth about it. 6. After hearing the learned Counsels, I am satisfied that the writ petitioner has made out a strong case in support of the candidature of Shri Ajit Kumar Paul who topped the panel with 55 marks to his credit. The Selection Committee was fully satisfied with the Mark Sheet of B.Ed. Examination produced before it and added 10 marks to the credit of Shri Paul with full justification. The State did not deny the genuinity of the Mark Sheet produced before the Selection Committee as well as before this Court but whimsically questions its genuinity without any basis whatsoever. The situation appears at once strange and amusing. The facts of the writ petition have not been denied by the State on oath and, as such, the contentions of the State cannot be accepted. There is no reason why Shri Ajit Kumar Paul should not be given his due which he deserves legally and why he should be deprived of his valuable right at the whim of the D.I.S. (S.E.), Birbhum, because of a technical defect. The State’s 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. This kind of discrimination is highly unfair and unjustified and deprives the citizen from his right of equality before the law or equal protection in the eye of law. 7. But it must be pointed out in all fairness that nowhere the writ petitioner has mentioned as to on which date the result of the B.Ed. Examination, 1985 of Calcutta University was announced nor any supplementary affidavit has been filed to this effect. This date is vital while taking a decision in this particular case. 8. 7. But it must be pointed out in all fairness that nowhere the writ petitioner has mentioned as to on which date the result of the B.Ed. Examination, 1985 of Calcutta University was announced nor any supplementary affidavit has been filed to this effect. This date is vital while taking a decision in this particular case. 8. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned Counsels, I make the following order :- 9. The Respondent No. 5 the District Inspector of School (S.E.) Birbhum, is directed to ascertain the fact whether the result of the B.Ed. Examination of Calcutta University for 1985 was announced prior to 16th May, 1986 or subsequent to this particular date. This date, i.e., 16th May, 1986 is important because on this date the Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Rampurhat, forwarded the list of the candidates which contained the name of Shri Paul. If the result of the B.Ed. Examination for 1985 was out prior to 16th May, 1986 then the D.I.S. (S.E.) shall not enforce his Memos dated 4th October, 1986 and 6th January, 1987 and shall proceed with the approval of the panel already submitted by the Managing Committee in accordance with law within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petitioner and the Respondent No. 6, Shri Ajit Kumar Paul, are also directed to held the D.I.S. (S.E.) in ascertaining the date when the result of the B.Ed. Examination in question was announced. But if the result of the B.Ed. Examination for 1985 was out after 16th May, 1986, then the D.I.S (S.E.). Birbhum, shall give effect to his Memos dated 4th October, 1986 and 6th January, 1987 and shall proceed in accordance with law to protect the right already accrued by the 2nd and 3rd candidates in the said panel. In such a situation the Selection Committee and the Managing Committee of the school shall abide by the direction to the D.I.S. (S.E.) regarding approval of the panel. 10. This Civil Order is disposed of with the above direction. There will be no order as to Costs. 11. Before I conclude, I must record my astonishment to a funny state of affairs. The envelope addressed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, returned back with the remark "refused". 10. This Civil Order is disposed of with the above direction. There will be no order as to Costs. 11. Before I conclude, I must record my astonishment to a funny state of affairs. The envelope addressed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, returned back with the remark "refused". The said envelope has been filed in the court along with the Affidavit-of-Service. It is strange that the office of the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, did not accept this particular registered letter. This type of harassment is not expected from a Government Department to an ordinary citizen and such an act on the part of Respondent No. 2 is highly regrettable. 12. Let the Registrar, Appellate side, High Court, be directed to forward a copy of this Judgment to the Respondent No. 2, the Director of public Instruction, West Bengal, drawing his attention to the above paragraph. Let the certified copy be issued immediately if applied for by the learned Advocate for the parties.