JUDGMENT Ray, J. This appeal is directed against judgment passed by the learned trial Judge in Civil Order No. 11092(W) of 1986. The aforesaid writ proceeding was initiated on the basis of the writ petition made by the respondent No. 1, Samsul Huda. In the said writ petition the panel of the teachers selected by the Board of Interview of Sadhikhan's Dearth Vidyanikatan was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Murshidabad, namely, the appellant in the instant appeal and the writ petitioner respondent contended that such rejection of the panel sent by the said School by the District Inspector of Schools was not proper and the writ petitioner respondent No. 1 contended that his name having been placed at the top of the list of the candidates selected by the Selection Committee, the panel should have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools for appointment as a teacher in the said School. The District Inspector of Schools has given a number of reasons for not accepting the said panel and one of the reasons is that the School called for the candidates from the local Employment Exchange for the purpose of interview without waiting for consideration of the names to be forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools from among the list of physically handicapped persons and the heirs and representatives of the persons who had died in harness while serving the Schools. Under the rules, it is necessary that whenever a vacancy occurs in a School for appointment of a teaching or a non-teaching staff, the School Committee is required to request the District Inspector of Schools to send the names for appointment to the post falling vacant from amongst the persons enlisted in the panel of physically handicapped persons and the nominees of the persons dying in harness while serving different institutions. The District Inspector of Schools has commented that the Managing Committee of the School ought to have waited for the said list to be sent by him and if a candidate from such list could have been selected, there would not have any necessity for holding an interview. But instead of doing that the Managing Committee requested tie local Employment Exchange to forward the names of the candidates for interview and as such there has been a gross irregularity in the matter of selecting candidates. But instead of doing that the Managing Committee requested tie local Employment Exchange to forward the names of the candidates for interview and as such there has been a gross irregularity in the matter of selecting candidates. The District Inspector of Schools has also commented that the list of names of the candidates selected at the interview should have been sent by the Secretary of the School, and by the Special Officer in this case. But the Headmaster having forwarded the names, an irregularity has also taken place. The District Inspector has also pointed out that the Headmaster had acted improperly in intimating to the writ petitioner, Sri Samsul Huda that in the selection list his name topped the list. He has also pointed out that although the selection was required to be made in respect of the teacher in the language group, in the list forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools it was stated that interview had taken place in respect of a teacher in the specialty of physics. 2. The learned trial Judge has disposed of the writ petition by directing the District Inspector of Schools to reconsider the question of approval of the panel in the light of the observations made in his judgment. 3. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the District Inspector of Schools has submitted that the reasons given by the District Inspector of School in not approving the selection list should not have been discarded and there was no occasion for sending the matter back to him for reconsideration. He has contended that in the instant case selection was made by a selection committee consisting of only two persons, namely, the Headmaster of the School and an outside expert although the Selection Committee consists of five members, as referred to in Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules. He has submitted that if on that score the District Inspector of Schools was not inclined to accept the said panel, there was no occasion to interfere by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Ghosh has also contended that the list of physically handicapped persons and the heirs and representatives of the persons employed in the School dying in harness was to be sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the School concerned on a request from the School authority. Mr. Ghosh has also contended that the list of physically handicapped persons and the heirs and representatives of the persons employed in the School dying in harness was to be sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the School concerned on a request from the School authority. But the letter containing such request from the School was actually received in the Berhampore Post Office on 29th May, and the Office of the District Inspector had received the same only on 31st May. But prior to that the Managing Committee without waiting for such list bad requested the local Employment Exchange to forward the names for holding the interview and on the basis of the names forwarded by the Employment Exchange, the interview had been held and as such, the interview must be held to be illegal and irregular and the District Inspector of Schools was quite justified in not according approval to such list. He has therefore submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools should be upheld. Otherwise, the very purpose of sending a list of physically handicapped persons and the heirs and representatives of the persons dying in harness in different institutions, will be frustrated. 4. Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner respondent No. 1 has, however, submitted that although it appears that the Managing Committee of the School did not wait for fifteen days from the date of communication of the request made by the Managing Committee to the District Inspector of Schools to put forward the names of the physically handicapped persons 2nd the heirs and representatives of the persons who had died in harness, the fact remains that the District Inspector of Schools did not forward any such name for being selected for the post of teacher as asked for. In the aforesaid circumstances, although there has been technical violation of the requirement as contained in the appropriate Rules, there has not been any substantial injustice in the matter and on that score there is no occasion to reject the panel. He has also submitted that it is immaterial if instead of the Secretary of the said School and/or the Special Officer acting as Secretary of the said School, the Headmaster had forwarded the names of the candidates selected by the Interview Board. Such technical defect, according to Mr. He has also submitted that it is immaterial if instead of the Secretary of the said School and/or the Special Officer acting as Secretary of the said School, the Headmaster had forwarded the names of the candidates selected by the Interview Board. Such technical defect, according to Mr. Ali, does not warrant rejection by the District Inspector of Schools and he has taken only hyper-technical view in the matter. Mr. Ali has also submitted that if the Headmaster of the said School had informed the writ petitioner Sri Samsul Huda that he had topped the list in the matter of interview being held for selection of the candidates, such intimation itself will not make the selection invalid and the District Inspector of Schools in this case has unfortunately taken a very hyper-technical attitude in rejecting the list of candidates sent by the School. Mr. Ali has submitted that through oversight it was stated that the panel was for a teacher in the specialty of physics although the selection was made for the teacher in the language group, but such erroneous description does not invalidate the selection made by the Selection Committee and it is only unfortunate that the District Inspector of Schools has over-emphasised such patent mistake in rejecting the said selection list forwarded by the School for his approval Mr. Ali, has further submitted that in the instant case the Special Officer for some personal reason could not attend the interview. The teachers representative and the nominee of the Panchayat did not attend the interview although they were informed about such interview. He has submitted that the Headmaster of the School and an external expert member were present in the Committee and a selection has been made by the Committee. Such selection should not be held invalid simply because other members of the Selection Committee did not attend such interview although they had been duly informed about the holding of such interview for selection of candidates. Mr. Ali has, therefore, submitted that there is no occasion to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge and the appeal should be dismissed. 5. Mr. Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing for the Headmaster of the School has supported Mr. Mr. Ali has, therefore, submitted that there is no occasion to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge and the appeal should be dismissed. 5. Mr. Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing for the Headmaster of the School has supported Mr. Ali and has further submitted that in the instant case the School not only requested the District Inspector of Schools to forward the names from the panel of physically handicapped persons and heirs and legal representatives of the persons dying in harness by a letter dated 6th May, 1985 which was sent under certificate of posting but the Headmaster of the School had also sent a reminder on 9th May, 1985 to the District Inspector of Schools to send the names of such candidates. He bas submitted that it is only unfortunate that due to postal delay the letter, which should have reached within two days, reached so late the office of the District Inspector of Schools but the other reminder sent on 9th May, had been received by the District Inspector of Schools in time and if the District Inspector of Schools was a little vigilant, he could send the names in time. As the School was in dire need of a teacher, without wasting time, the School requested the local Employment Exchange to forward the names so that the teacher may be appointed as soon as possible for the interest of the students. 6. Mr. Ganguly, has also supported Mr. Ali that when in fact the District Inspector of Schools did not forward the names from the panel of the persons physically handicapped and the heirs and representatives of the persons who had died in harness, even after receipt of the letter of request from the School, an interview held from amongst the candidates forwarded by the local Employment Exchange cannot be held to be invalid. Mr. Ganguly has further submitted that although under the Rules, a selection committee of a School in the rural area consists of five persons including the nominee of the panchayat, the Rules do not lay down that there should be a quoram in the selection committee by a required number of persons present. In the absence of any such provision, if the selection had taken place by the Headmaster and an expert member, the selection made by the selection committee cannot be held to be illegal or irregular. In the absence of any such provision, if the selection had taken place by the Headmaster and an expert member, the selection made by the selection committee cannot be held to be illegal or irregular. He has submitted that the aforesaid rules concerning formation of the Selection Committee must he held to be recommendatory in nature and the Selection Committee will not be invalid simply because one or more members of the Selection Committee actually did not appear at the time of taking the interview. Mr. Ganguly has also contended that Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules provides for evaluating the candidates for selection of teaching staff. In the aforesaid circumstances there is hardly any scope to show any particular favour to any candidate by the members of the Selection Committee. He has therefore, submitted that the selection made by the Selection Committee of the school should not be discarded on some technical view and in the interest of the School the names of the candidates forwarded by the School for approval of the District Inspector of Schools should be taken into consideration on merit so that there may not be any further delay in the matter of appointment of the teacher. 7. After hearing the respective contentions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it appears to us that there is force in the contentions made by the learned counsels for the writ petitioner respondent and also the Headmaster of the said School. It is true that before calling for the names from the local Employment Exchange for the purpose of interview, the school is required to ask for the names from amongst the persons enlisted in the panel of physically handicapped persons and the heirs and representatives of the persons dying in harness from the District Inspector of Schools and the Rule enjoins that on such request being made within fifteen days, the District Inspector of Schools is to forward the names. The mention of fifteen days in the Rule clearly indicates that the rule making authorities ensured that the District Inspector of Schools should not delay in forwarding the names so that the selection is not delayed and it has been further provided that if within fifteen days from the date of communication of the request by the School, the names are not forwarded, the School will be entitled to proceed by taking steps for filling up the vacancies from the candidates sponsored by the local Employment Exchange and in the absence of suitable candidates from the list forwarded by the Employment Exchange selection is to be made by giving open advertisement. We think that there is enough force in the contention of the respondents that when in fact the list from the District Inspector of Schools was not sent at all, the question of considering such panel did not and could not arise. But we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsels for the respondents that in the absence of any quorum for the selection committee being mentioned in the Rules, such selection committee may consist of any of the members of the selection committee if the other members arc duly informed and they do not choose to remain present on the date of interview. In our view, the very purpose of the Rule will be frustrated if such selection is not made by at least 50% of the members of selection committee. In our view, although such rules may not be mandatory in nature the very purpose of the recommendatory rules will be frustrated if such selection is not made by at least 50% of the members of the selection committee thereby putting collective wisdom of the members of the Managing Committee. There may be occasions when one or two of the members of the Selection Committee, for some reason or other, despite notice being served on such members may fail to appear on the date of the interview, but simply on such score of absence of such members the interview, if taken by 50% or more members of the Selection Committee, should not be held invalid. Otherwise, the selection will not only be delayed, but it may cause hardship to the candidates appearing in the interview from outside stations. Otherwise, the selection will not only be delayed, but it may cause hardship to the candidates appearing in the interview from outside stations. But if the selection committee is not represented even by the 50% of the members, we do not think that such selection had taken place in the true spirit of the rules in question. In the instant case, unfortunately, out of five members only two members were present in the selection committee and before the interview had taken place it was made known that the other three members would not be coming. In the aforesaid circumstances, the interview ought to have been postponed to that such interview could have been held in the presence of more members of the selection committee representing at least 50%. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the list of candidates forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools by the selection committee consisting of only two members appears to us as improper and invalid, and therefore need not be considered by the District Inspector of Schools. We, however, feel that there should not be any further delay in filling up the vacancy of the teachers of the said School. It is therefore directed that the candidates who were called for in the interview which has since been cancelled by this order will be called «fresh by fixing a date by giving at least clear ten days notice and all the members of the Selection Committee should be informed of such date by giving ten days notice so that they may try to be present and take part in the interview. 9. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that at the present moment the District Inspector of Schools himself has been appointed as the Special Officer and it has been submitted by the learned Counsels for the respondents that since the District Inspector of Schools is to approve the list of the candidates forwarded by the said School on the basis of the interview held, the District Inspector of Schools cannot function as a member of the selection committee. There is enough force in the said submission of the learned counsels for the respondents and in the facts of the case, we direct that the Additional District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad will act as an Administrator of the said School for the purpose of selection of the teacher in question. 10. There is enough force in the said submission of the learned counsels for the respondents and in the facts of the case, we direct that the Additional District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad will act as an Administrator of the said School for the purpose of selection of the teacher in question. 10. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that in the instant case there is no Teachers Council functioning in the said School in terms of an interim order passed in a writ proceeding. In the circumstances, the teachers representative in the Selection Committee cannot be elected by the Teachers’ Council. We, therefore, direct the Additional District Inspector of Schools who bas been directed to be the Administrator for the limited purpose as aforesaid, to select the teachers’ representative. 11. Our attention has also been drawn to the fact that the senior-most teacher in the language group of the said School, Sri Nityananda Das had expressed some opinion about the writ petitioner respondent and it is reasonably apprehended that his inclusion in the selection committee may prejudice the interest of the writ petitioner. Hence, the Additional District Inspector is directed to see that Sri Das is not included as the teachers representative for the selection in question. 12. After the selection is made by the aforesaid selection committee, the names of the candidates so selected will be forwarded by the Additional District Inspector of Schools to the District Inspector of Schools, Murshidabad for approval and the District Inspector of Schools (S.B.) is directed to consider the said list and dispose of such list for approval within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such list. We make it clear that the Selection Committee for the selection of the teacher of the said School must be represented by at least three members of the Selection Committee. It is reasonably expected that the School authority will take appropriate steps to hold the selection so that the post of the teacher is filled up without any further delay. 13. The appeal is accordingly disposed of treating the same as on day's list and in view of the order disposing of the appeal no further order need be passed on the application for interim order which is also disposed of accordingly. 14. 13. The appeal is accordingly disposed of treating the same as on day's list and in view of the order disposing of the appeal no further order need be passed on the application for interim order which is also disposed of accordingly. 14. It is stated that no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed to the application for interim order but the allegations made in the application are not admitted by the respondents. Let the certified copies of this order be given to the parties expeditiously if applications are made for the same. Yusuf, J. : I agree.