JUDGMENT Paschimbanga Prathamik Sikshak Sikshan Prapta Bakar ‘O’ Sikshak Samity, Hooghly Zillah is the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 13340(W) of 1983 and Paschimbanga Prathamik Sikshak Sikshan Prapta Bakar 'O' Sikshak Samity, West Bengal and Others are the Writ petitioners in Civil Rule No. 610(W) of 1988 (for short the Writ petitioners hereafter in both the Rules). 2. The Writ petitioners obtained Civil Rule No. 13340(W) of 1983 centring round the grievances of the trained teachers having requisite qualifications against the actions of respondents in empanelling and appointing untrained teachers were taken up for hearing together. Writ petitioners are registered Societies raised its grievances for the appointment of primary teachers for the District of Hooghly only. This rule came up for hearing before this court in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for disposal thereof within the stipulated time. 3. The Writ petitioners similarly obtained the Civil Rule No 610(W) of 1988 for the appointment of qualified and trained primary teachers in different districts of the State of West Bengal, inter alia, praying for cancellation of panels illegally prepared by the respondents authorities of all the districts of West Bengal and for empanelment of the names of the petitioners for appointment as primary teachers against the vacancies in the Primary Schools of different districts of the State of West Bengal in conformity with the Pay Commission's recommendations and orders of the Government having statutory force. As indicated above, prayer on behalf of the State was made for the analogous hearing of the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 13340(W) of 1983 and Civil Rule No. 610(W) of 1988. As the controversies in both the cases being more or less common and the reliefs, both immediate and ultimate, as prayed for by the petitioners are for securing employment according to eligibility. In both the matters, number of applications for addition of parties were made and they are added as parties. Appearance on behalf of the Ad-hoc District School Board was effected. 4. The learned Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed hearing of the Rule No. 13340(W) of 1983 but the said directions by reason of the failure of the writ petitioners to secure compliance with all the formalities and directions paned by this court in the aforesaid rules could not be acted upon. 4. The learned Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed hearing of the Rule No. 13340(W) of 1983 but the said directions by reason of the failure of the writ petitioners to secure compliance with all the formalities and directions paned by this court in the aforesaid rules could not be acted upon. Directions passed by this Court from time to time, would appear from the order sheet, were not carried out. As a result, hearing of the matter has been deferred from time to time. Be it recorded that this Court even on Saturday just after the close of the Puja vacations of 1988 took up the hearing of the matter. Unfortunately, it was found that the rule was not made ready as regards service nor all the District School Boards were made parties. 5. The aforesaid rules were taken up for hearing for a number of days by me and heard. Adjournments were taken by the parties on different occasions. Ultimately, I fixed the date of hearing on one Saturday with the consent of the parties i. e., on October 8, 1988 so that the matter could be disposed of without delay. The matter was heard at length. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sen learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Narendra Chandra Saha and Mr. Amiya Kumar Chakraborty argued the matter on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Arun Kumar Sarkar, the Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondents raised certain objections. Accordingly, paper publication wag made for addition of parties willing to be added as petitioners. However, some parties were added pursuant to the paper publication. In view of the urgency of the case as also by reason of the directions of the Supreme Court in connection with Civil Rule No. 13340(W) of 1983. I passed directions to the effect that both writ petitioners and respondents to submit their arguments. Petitioners placed various facts and circumstances as also legality in the proceedings, propriety and irrationality that crept in the impugned action of the respondents. 6. The writ petitioner in Civil Rule No. 13340(W) of 1983 prayed for time to submit supplimentary affidavit inasmuch as the petitioners even after exercise of proper, effective and due diligence could not procure and produce some documents and papers at the time of presentation of the writ application as also filing of the Affidavit-in-Reply. 6. The writ petitioner in Civil Rule No. 13340(W) of 1983 prayed for time to submit supplimentary affidavit inasmuch as the petitioners even after exercise of proper, effective and due diligence could not procure and produce some documents and papers at the time of presentation of the writ application as also filing of the Affidavit-in-Reply. On the prayer of the petitioners, time was granted for inspection of records of the Hooghly District. 7. In Civil Rule No. 610(W) of 1988, paper publication and inspection of the records in respect of all the Districts of West Bengal were found essential and necessary. As stated above the Sikshak Samity, West Bengal in Civil Rule No. 610(W) of 1988 with a view to indicating the rights or thousands of trained primary teachers having requisite qualifications arid residing in the State of West Bengal presented the writ application. Some of the writ petitioners as members of the said Sikshak Samity, West Bengal, moved several Writ petitions from different districts and obtained orders of different nature from different Courts. Respondents, according to the Writ petitioners, took advantage of the orders obtained by the writ petitioners are not giving due compliance of the said orders of this court in so far as the legitimate rights of the petitioners are involved. 8. In order to get over these difficulties, the writ petitioners obtained Civil Rule No. 610(W) of 1988 representing the case of aggrieved trained teachers of all the districts of West Bengal. The factual matrix as cast in the writ petition warrants presentation which in brief, is presented below : The petitioners are eligible to be empanelled through the Employment Exchange vide Government Order No. 559-Edn. (P) / 3-60 81 dated Calcutta the 4th August, 1981 issued by the Education Department, Primary Branch, Government of West Bengal wherein is, inter alia, stated that the Governor made an order to the effect that all panels should be prepared by the District School Boards from amongst the names obtained from the Employment Exchange of the District concerned. Pay Commission's recommendation is embodied in proviso of Annexure-I of Memo No. 372-Edn. (B) dated Calcutta the 31st July, 1981. Pay Commission's recommendation is embodied in proviso of Annexure-I of Memo No. 372-Edn. (B) dated Calcutta the 31st July, 1981. In accordance with the Pay Commission's recommendations as aforesaid issued by the Deputy Secretary (by the order of the Governor) Government of West Bengal, Education Department (Budget Branch), the petitioners are eligible for being appointed as Primary teachers in clear preference to others, or in other words, the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as primary teachers in the manner indicated above. It is a serious grievance of the writ petitioners that they secured the chance to obtain training under the control of the Government and the Government paid stipend to the petitioners per month during the period of such training. Before the training being imparted to the petitioners an execution of Article of Agreement had to be effected by the petitioners. The said Article of Agreement made between the Government on behalf of the State of West Bengal and the petitioners as would appear as part of Annexure 'A' to the Writ petition, being Civil Rule No.610(W) of 1988 with Special reference of paragraph 7 of the agreement being in the nature of a bond creates binding obligation upon the candidates they were compelled to serve under the Government either as teachers in the Junior Basic Schools as may be desired by the Government or serve a voluntary organisation running basic training institution of teachers or social welfare workers under the Control of the State Government. A salient aspect and relevant terms of agreement read thus :– "1. That the Government shall pay a monthly stipend of Rs. 30/- only per month for the period of twelve months commencing from the month of December to the trainee of his fulfilling and observing the terms and conditional hereinafter on the part of the trainee concerned. 2. ........................................................................................................... 3. ............................................................................................................ 4. That the trainee shall undergo such further course of training field-work or refresher course that may be regarded part of the course of such training. 5. ............................................................................................................ 6. ............................................................................................................. 7. 2. ........................................................................................................... 3. ............................................................................................................ 4. That the trainee shall undergo such further course of training field-work or refresher course that may be regarded part of the course of such training. 5. ............................................................................................................ 6. ............................................................................................................. 7. That upon the successful completion of the training the trainee shall on being called upon to do so by the Government, either (1) serve as teacher in such Junior Basic School as may be desired by the Government on such remuneration as from time to time be fixed by Government as long as the Government desires the trainee to be so employed, or (2) serve a voluntary organisation Running Basic Training Institutions as a teacher or a Social Welfare worker in a capacity in connection with the activities allied to social welfare in any of their Institutions as such remuneration as may be fixed by the organisation with the approval of the Government, so long as such organisations desires the trainee to be so employed. 8. ...........................................................” 10. The petitioners after completion of their training and success in the examination, as required by the aforesaid Government order dated August 4, 1981 duly effected the names of the petitioners registered in the Employment Exchange in the respective areas or localities or districts having specific Code being No. 153.10 of the Employment Exchange earmarked for primary teachers only as would be evident from Part 'A' of the writ petition being C. R. No. 610(W) of 1988 and Annexure 'D' of Supplementary Affidavit presented in connection with the Civil Rule No. 13340(W) of 1983. The writ petitioners duly registered themselves in tile Employment Exchange in the manner indicated above and after having done so, the Writ petitioners have been waiting for a pretty long time for their turn to be appointed as Primary teachers through the Employment Exchange but the authorities concerned according to the petitioners, acted in violation of the Pay Commissioner's recommendations and the Government orders on the basis of which the Writ petitioners' claim to be appointed as primary teachers in preference to untrained teachers and thereafter, Government are making appointments in naked and indiscreet manner of favourite untrained person without having scant regard to their own orders and the fact the untrained persons who do not have requisite qualifications. Such appointment were made merely on ipsi dixit of the Government. The factual presentation in brief relates to both the Civil Rules. 11. Such appointment were made merely on ipsi dixit of the Government. The factual presentation in brief relates to both the Civil Rules. 11. In Civil Rule No. 13340(W) of 1983 the President, Ad-hoc Committee, District School Board, Hooghly being Respondent No.3 for self and on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition. Assertions of Respondent No. 3 in the Affidavit-in-Opposition are neither plausible nor are consistent with fact and circumstances of the case in hand. In paragraph 4 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition the said respondent claims “I say that the Board invited applications directly from the candidates and such action of the Board would be evident from Memo No. 782-Edn.(P) / 7P-2/83 dated 11th October, 1983, mentioned in Annexure ‘X’. The said Annexure ‘X’ appears at page 9 of the said affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is found that the said Notification was issued in relaxation of the procedure laid down in G. O. No. 421-Edn (P) dated March 27, 1978. Invitation of applications through open advertisement by the said Notification was allowed but the said Memo issued in 1983 and the aforesaid Government Order No. 421-Edn(P) dated 27th March, 1978 on the basis of which the said memo issued, was set aside in March 31, 1981. This fact is beyond the pale of challenge by reason of the fact that the respondents admitted in paragraph 11 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition in the manner following :– “As regard Memo No. 421-Edn.(P) dated 27th March, 1978 I say that the said memo was quashed by an order passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. Ray in Civil Order No. 15431(W) of 1980 on 31st March, 1981 and the Hon’ble Division Bench p resided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Dutt was pleased to confirm the same”. Respondent No. 3 further states as would appear from paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition to the following effect. “I say that the petitioners have filed applications in response to the advertisement made by the President and also have appeared at the interview for selection for empanelment." 12. Paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition is relevant inasmuch as the respondent states "it is to be noted that advertisement issued by the President inviting applications for empanelment of candidates was made on 12th March, 1981 and the interview for such empanelment was completed by August, 1983". 13. Paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition is relevant inasmuch as the respondent states "it is to be noted that advertisement issued by the President inviting applications for empanelment of candidates was made on 12th March, 1981 and the interview for such empanelment was completed by August, 1983". 13. There is no provision for advertisement for empanelment of the Primary teachers nor is there any such provision for advertisement for inviting applications and the respondents have and had asserted something which is mutually inconsistent and self contradictory. It requires consideration in depth inasmuch as there being no provision for advertisement for empanelment of the primary teachers, the assertions of the respondents is wholly inconsistent with the Pay Commission's recommendation, proviso of Government Order No. 372-Edn. (B) dated July 31, 1981 and the Government Order No.459-Edn (p) / 3P-16/81 dated 4th August, 1981. Relevant portions of both the Government orders and the Pay Commission's recommendations to the extent indicated above are quoted below :– "G. O. No. 372-Edn. (P) dated 31.7.81 : Proviso of Annexure I of the above order "provided that untrained S. F. passed candidates will not be recruited if School Final passed trained/untrained candidates be available." G.O. No. 459-Edn (P) / 3P-16/81 dated 4th August, 1981. "The Governor has been pleased to order that all panels should be prepared by the District School Board/District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), as the case may be from amongst the names obtained from the Employment Exchanges of the District concerned. This order should take immediate effect." 14. In terms of Finance Department Resolution No. 9716-F dated 16th November, 1977, the Government set up a Pay Commission with the terms of reference which included that the Commission will also examine the structure of emoluments and the conditions of service of the– (a) teachers and non-teaching staff of– (i) State Government Sponsored or aided Primary School/ Junior Basic Schools (including Pre-basic schools). The said Pay commission submitted its report as would appear from Notification No. 372-Edn. (P) dated 31st July, 1981 (Annexure 'D' of Supplementary Affidavit) in C. R. No. 13340(W) of 1983 and Annexure 'A' to the writ petition being C. R. No. 610(W) of 1988. The said Pay commission submitted its report as would appear from Notification No. 372-Edn. (P) dated 31st July, 1981 (Annexure 'D' of Supplementary Affidavit) in C. R. No. 13340(W) of 1983 and Annexure 'A' to the writ petition being C. R. No. 610(W) of 1988. Proviso to the Annexure-I of the said Notification is stated as follows :– "provided that untrained S. F. passed candidates will not be recruited if trained School Final passed candidates be available, non-School Final passed candidates will not be recruited, if School Final Candidates trained/untrained be available." 15. From the aforesaid Government orders, it appears crystal clear that– i) no untrained candidate shall be appointed if trained candidates are available, ii) while giving appointments out of the panels, preference should be given to the trained candidates for appointments, iii) Panel should be prepared by the District School Board/ District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education) as the case may be, from the names obtained from the Employment Exchange of District concerned. 16. I find from the records that panels have been prepared by some of the District School Boards not from the names sent by the Employment Exchanges of the District concerned utter violation of the Government Order quoted above. Also I find from the records that a good number of untrained School Final passed and Non-School Final passed candidates have been given appointments to the post of Assistant Teachers to the exclusion of the petitioners of C. R. No. 13340(W) of 1983 and C. R. No. 610(W) of 1988, who are trained teachers and whose names are registered in the concerned District Employment exchanges. 17. From the Government Notification No. 479(16)-Edn. (P) dated 29th August, 1984 (Annexure "E" to the Supplementary Affidavit of C.R. No. 13340(W) of 1983 and Annexure "B" to the writ petition in C. R. No. 610(W) of 1988, it appears that the Government Order No. 603-Edn (P) dated 20th April, 1977 and the Government Order No. 421-Edn (P) dated 27th March, 1978 have been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. The said Government orders, inter alia, relate to ratio or quota system between trained and untrained teachers at 50 : 50 and 60 : 40 basis. 18. The said Government orders, inter alia, relate to ratio or quota system between trained and untrained teachers at 50 : 50 and 60 : 40 basis. 18. While it is specifically provided that only the trained teachers will be appointed, it is not open to the District School Board to appoint untrained teachers to the exclusion of the petitioners who are trained and who are waiting for a long time after having registered their Dames in the Employment Exchanges of the District concerned. 19. It is also not open to the District School Board to follow the ratio or quota system as the concerned Government Notification relating to ratio or quota systems have been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. 20. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition in C. R. No. 610(W) of 1988 it is stated that "a person namely Subrata Palit of Haripal, died in 1981, but in the panel prepared in 1983, it is found that his name has been appeared as second candidate who was shown to have been called for interview on October, 1983". There is no denial of the fact as stated above and as such the said statement stands uncontroverted. 21. I directed the respondents in the above civil rules to produce written arguments before me. Some District School Boards sought to justify the decisions by quoting some Government orders that there is no bar to appoint untrained School Final passed and Non-School Final passed candidates. It is also their contention that there is nothing to show that only the trained candidates would be appointed. 22. In my opinion, there is no substance in their contention in view of the relevant Government Orders Notifications cited by the Writ petitioners showing that (i) only trained candidates will be appointed, (ii) while giving appointments preference would be given to the trained candidates and (iii) panels would be prepared out of the names sent by the concerned District Employment Exchange. 23. The District School Board also contended that they are competent to appoint teachers on the basis of ratio 50 : 50 and 60 : 40 basis between trained and untrained teachers. 24. 23. The District School Board also contended that they are competent to appoint teachers on the basis of ratio 50 : 50 and 60 : 40 basis between trained and untrained teachers. 24. I find that the ratio and/or quota system of 50 : 50 and 60 : 40 basis between trained and untrained teachers as embodied in the Government Notification hereinabove stated have already been set aside by this Hon'ble court as would be evident from the Notification No. 479(16)-Edn.(P) dated 29th August, 1984. The plea of the District School Boards as would appear from the aforesaid Notification as summarised above could not be sustained. The contention of the District School Boards as would appear from the affidavits used by some of the District School Boards as also the argument could not be accepted by reason of the Government orders as referred to hereinabove. The said Notification, Government orders including pay Commission's recommendations are in the manner following : (i) No. 3853(15) Sc/P(II) dated 21st Dec. 1964. Para 5 : "The pointed attention of the District School Board authorities is drawn." (ii) No. 5815(15) Scp (II) / SP-100P-66 dated 19th Dec. 1968 Para 4 : "............No untrained candidate shall be appointed if trained candidates are available." (iii) No. 1447-Edn.(P) / 9A-9/73 dated 5th September, 1973. Para 3 : "While giving appointments out of the panels already prepared, preference should be given to the trained candidate for appointment." (iv) No. 173-Edn.(P) / 4A-8/73 dated 21st January, 1974. Amendment : (6) While preparing panels for appointments to the post of primary teachers, preference shall be given to the trained candidate'' (v) No. 648-Edn. (P) / 3P-12/73 dated 24th April, 1974. Para 3 : "............All additional posts in schools under the control of the District School Boards should be filled up by trained candidates only" (vi) No. 892-Edn. (P) / 3P-49/74/75 dated 5th August, 1975 Sub-para 2 of para 5 "............All additional posts should be filled up by trained candidates only" (vii) No. 372-Edn.(P) dated 21.7.1981. Proviso to Annexure I of the above order. "Provided that untrained S. F. passed candidates will not be recruited if trained School Final passed candidates be available, Non-School Final passed candidates will not be recruited if School Final passed trained/untrained candidates be available." (viii) No. 459-Edn. (P) /3P-16/81 dated 4th August, 1981. “...... ...... Proviso to Annexure I of the above order. "Provided that untrained S. F. passed candidates will not be recruited if trained School Final passed candidates be available, Non-School Final passed candidates will not be recruited if School Final passed trained/untrained candidates be available." (viii) No. 459-Edn. (P) /3P-16/81 dated 4th August, 1981. “...... ...... The Governor has been pleased to order that all panels should be prepared by the District School Board/District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education) as the case may be from amongst the names obtained from the Employment Exchange of District concerned. 25. This order should take immediate effect. 26. It is now appropriate for this court to examine the following decisions cited by the petitioners : (1) Purushottam Lal v. Union of India reported in 1973(1) SCC 651 . (2) Central Inland Transport Corporation v. Brojonath Ganguly reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571 . (3) B. S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute reported in 1983 (4) SCC 582 . (4) Manmohan Singh Jatia v. Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh reported in 1984 (Suppl.) SCC 540. (5) Amarjit Singh Ahluwalla v. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1975 SC 984 . (6) B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore reported in 1966 (3) SCR 682 . (7) Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1968 (1) SCR 111 and AIR 1967 SC 1910 . (8) Kashmir University v. Mohammed Yasin reported in AIR 1974 SC 238 . (9) M. P. Sugar Mills v. State of U. P. reported in AIR 1979 SC 621 . (1) In Case of Purushottam Lal y. Union of India reported in 1973(1) SCC 651 at P. 652, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court of India held in the manner following :– "It was not for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission and while doing so to determine which categories of employees should be taken to have been included in the terms of reference. Either the Government had made reference in respect of all Government employees or it had not. But if it had made a reference to respect of all Government employees and it accepted the recommendations it was found to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. Either the Government had made reference in respect of all Government employees or it had not. But if it had made a reference to respect of all Government employees and it accepted the recommendations it was found to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If it did not implement the report regarding some employees only it committed a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." (2) In the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath at p. 1583 the learned Judge held Art. 12 defines the expression "the State" while the other Articles of the Constitution referred to above, such as Article 152 and Art. 308, and CI. (58) of sec. 3 of the General Clauses Act define the term State "......The delibe rate use of the expression 'the State' in Art. 12 as also 36 would have normally shown that this expression was used to denote the State in its ordinary and Constitutional sense of an independent or sovereign State and the inclusive lause in Art. 12 would have extended this meaning to include within its scope whatever has been expressly set out in Art. 12. The definition of the expression" 'the State' in Art. 12, is, however, for the purposes of Parts III and IV of the Constitution. The Contents of these two Parts clearly show that the expression 'the State' in Art. 12 as also In Art. 36 is Dot confined to its ordinary and Constitutional sense as extended by the inclusive portion of Art. 12 but is uses in the concept of the State in relation to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and the Directive Principles of State Policy contained In Part IV of the Constitution which principles are declared by Art. 37 to be fundamental to the governance of the country and enjoins upon the State to apply in making laws." (3) In B. S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute following (10) Ajay Hasia's case ( AIR 1984 SC 363 ), this court held that the said Society was an 'authority' within the meaning of Art. 12 and hence a writ petition under Art. 32 filed against it was competent and maintainable. In Manmohon Singh Jatia v. Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1984) Supp. In Manmohon Singh Jatia v. Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1984) Supp. SCC 540 : AIR 1985 SC 364 , this court once again following Ajay Hasia's case held that an aided School which received a Government grant of ninety five percent was an 'authority' within the meaning of Art. 12 and, therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction both of this court and the High Court." In the case of (11) Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. reported in AIR 1985 SC 806 the learned Judge of the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is applicable against the Government in the exercise of its Governmental, public or executive functions. While dealing with this aspect, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court referred to the decision in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Other, held inter alia :– "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 and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an Act in violation of them." The aforesaid principles laid down by Mr. Justice Frankfutter in (12) Vitarelli v. Seaton found its acceptability by the Supreme Court as would appear from the decision of Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, 1975 SCC 503 as also Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, it was inter alia, held." "Now it is true that Clause 2(ii) of the Memorandum was in the nature of administrative instruction, not having the force of law, but the State Government could not at its own sweet will depart from it without rational justification and fix an artificial date for commencing the length of continuous service in the case of some individual officers only for the purpose of giving them seniority in contravention of that clause. That would he clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The sweep of Articles 14 and 16 is wide and pervasive. That would he clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The sweep of Articles 14 and 16 is wide and pervasive. These two Articles embodying the principles of rationality and they are intended to strive against arbitrary and discriminatory action taken by the 'State' where the State Government departs from principle of seniority laid down by it albeit by administrative instructions, and the departure is without reason and arbitrary, it would directly infringe the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16". In (13) Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr. reported in AIR 1975 SC 1331 , it has been held– "That apart, the regulations framed by these Corporations were intended to be binding upon them and were the bases on which the employments were made. As the employments were under Corporations created by Statutes for carrying on business of public importance, they were public employment. And even if the regulations have not got the force of law, I think the principle laid down by Justice Frankfurter in Vitarellia v. Seaton, (1959) 359 US 353 at pp. 546-547 should govern the situation." (4) In the case of Manmohan Singh Jatia v. Union Territory of Chandigarh reported in (1984) Suppl. SCC 540, the learned Judges held in the manner following :– "The High Court declined to grant any relief on the ground that an aided school is not 'other authority' under Art. 12 of the Constitution and is therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court clearly overlooked the point that the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner are statutory authorities operating under the 1969 Act. They are quasi-Judicial authorities and that was not disputed. Therefore, they will be comprehended in the expression 'Tribunal' as used in Article 227 of the Constitution which confers power of the superintendence over all courts and tribunals by the High Court throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Obviously, therefore, the decision of the statutory quasi-judicial authorities which can be appropriately described as 'tribunal' will be subject to judicial review namely a writ of certiorari by the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The decision questioned before the High Court was of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner exorcising powers under section 3 of the 1969 Act. The decision questioned before the High Court was of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner exorcising powers under section 3 of the 1969 Act. And these statutory authorities are certainly amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The matter can be viewed from a slightly different angle as well. After the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi the aided school receing 95% of expense by way of grant from the public exchequer an whose employees have received the statutory protection under 1969 Act and who is subject to the regulations made by the Education Department of the Union Territory of Chandigarh as also the appointment of headmaster to be valid must be approved by the Director of Public Instruction, would certainly be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court…..Add to this “the existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality”. Substituting the words ‘public trust’ in place of the ‘corporation’ and the reasons will mutatis mutandis apply to the School. Therefore, also the High Court was in error in holding that the third respondent-school was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.” (5) Their Lordship of the Supreme Court held in the case of Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1975 SC 984 as follow :– “Now, it is true that Clause (2)(ii) of the Memorandum was in the nature of administrative instruction, not having the force of law, but the State Government could not at its own sweet will depart from it without rational jurisdiction and fix an artificial date for commencing the length of continuous service in the case of some individual officers only for the purpose of giving them seniority in contravention of that clause. That would be clearly violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The sweep of Article 14 and 16 is wide and pervasive. That would be clearly violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The sweep of Article 14 and 16 is wide and pervasive. These two Articles embodying the principle of rationality and they are intended to strive against arbitrary and discriminatory action taken by the ‘State’ where the State Government departs from the principle of seniority laid down by it, albeit by administrative instruction, and the departure is without reason and arbitrary, it would directing infringe the guarantee of equality under Article 14 and 16.” (6) The Supreme Court held in the case of B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore in the manner following :– “The words ‘shall be as set forth in the rules of recruitment of such service specially made in that behalf in R. 3 of the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1957 do not imply that till the rules are made in that behalf no recruitment can be made in that behalf no recruitment can be made to any service. It is not obligatory proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of make rules of recruitment etc. before a service can be constituted or a post created or filled. Secondly, the State Government has executive power, in relation to all matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has no power, to make laws. It follows from this that the State Government will have executive power in respect of Sch. 7, List II, Entry 41, State Public Services. There is nothing in the terms of the executive to act under Art. 162 of the Constitution without a law. (14) AIR 1955 SC 549 Rel. on (para-5). Rules usually take a long time to make various authorities have to be consulted and it could not have been the intention of R. 3 to halt the working of the public departments till rules were framed. (15) AIR 1961 SC 276 Rel. on (para-6). The contention that if executive is held to have power to make appointments and lay down conditions of service without milking rules in that behalf under the proviso to Art. 309, Arts. 15 and 16 would breached is untenable. It the Government advertises the appointments and makes a selection after advertisement there would be no breach of Arts. on (para-6). The contention that if executive is held to have power to make appointments and lay down conditions of service without milking rules in that behalf under the proviso to Art. 309, Arts. 15 and 16 would breached is untenable. It the Government advertises the appointments and makes a selection after advertisement there would be no breach of Arts. 15 or 16 of the Constitution; because everybody who is eligible in view the Conditions of service would be entitled to be considered by the State (para-7). Held, assuming that the State Government could not retrospective rules under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and that the Mysore Public Works Engineering Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1960 (as amended on 23.8.1961) were void so far as they were made to operate retrospectively the appointments of Asstt. Engineers in the Public Works Department made by Mysore Government Notification No. P. W. 10 SAG 59 dated 31.10.61 could be considered to have been validly made in exercise of the executive power of the State under Art. 162 of the Constitution. The three notifications issued by Public Service Commission must be treated Co have been issued with the consent of the State Government and were executive notifications and not rules made under Art.309 of the Constitution. There were no statutory rules to govern the appointments. Rule 3 of the Mysore State Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957 did not prevent the State from exercising its executive power to appointing Asstt. Engineers and determining their conditions of service by executive Order." (7) Their Lordships in the case of Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (Supra), held that the promotion to 'selection grade posts' is not automation on the basis of ranking in Graduation list-Promotion is primarily based on seniority alone–Administrative practice. It can not be said that till statutory rules governing promotion to selection grade posts are framed, Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding principles to be followed. If case of all eligible candidates are considered before appointment to such posts, no violation of Articles 14 and 16 occurs." (8) Mr. Ashoke Sen, the learned Senior Counsel strongly made further reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashmir University v. Md. Uasin reported in AIR 1974 SC 238 which, according to him supports their case. Ashoke Sen, the learned Senior Counsel strongly made further reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashmir University v. Md. Uasin reported in AIR 1974 SC 238 which, according to him supports their case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case held that the circumstances under which persons mostly untrained appointed as Primary teachers do not vest in those persons the legal status of validity appointed teacher with all the protections that the Act, Statutes, Notifications and Government Orders give to such persons. The appointment of primary teachers can be made only in the mode prescribed by the statutory Rules, Notifications and Government Order having the statutory force. If any appointment by administrative draft by virtue of executive Instructions is made in case of any person the same cannot be validated on any theory of factum valet and their services cannot be treated as regular service under the School Board with the sanction of law. Mr. Sen relied on the decision made in the case of (16) The High Court and Anr. v. Amal Kumar Roy & Ors., ( AIR 1962 SC 1704 ) and where it was held that "there will be violation of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India if the choice of the inferior candidate is prompted by irrelevant and extraneous consideration." Mr. Sen further relied on the decision in the case of (17) General Manager, S. E. Rly v. Rangachari, (AIR 1962 SC 36) "where it was held that "if a person is eligible and he is not considered for appointment then Art. 16 of the Constitution will be violated because the power of the State to make appointment is subject to Constitutional limitation and is has got not the same freedom and right as a private citizen." (9) Further, the decision made in the case of M. P. Sugar Mills v. State of U. P. (Supra), where it was held "that in India not only has the doctrine of promissory estoppel been recognised as affording a cover of section to the person to whom the provision is made. Words or conduct intended to be acted upon is promissory estoppel." (10) The decision made in the case of B. M. Morcha v. Union of India (Supra), where it was held "that public interest litigation makes basis human right meaningful to the deprived section of the community and to assure them social and economic justice." (11) In the case of Bihar Legal Support Society v. C. M. of India (Supra), it was held that "strategy of public interest litigation has been evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court within the easy reach of the poor and the disadvantaged section of the community." Mr. Sen further relied on the decision in the case of (18) Union of India v. Anglo Afgan Agencies reported in AIR 1968 SC 718 (Para-20) wherein, it was inter alia, held that "it is open to a party who has acted on a representation made by the Government to claim that the Government shall be bound to carry out the premise made by it even though the promise is not recorded in the form or a formal contract as required by the Constitution." 27. Mr. Sen relied on the decision in the case of (19) Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipality reported in AIR 1971 SC 1021 (Para-11), the Supreme Court again considered the doctrine of promissory estoppel and decide that Public bodies are as much bound as private individuals to carry out representation of facts and promises made by them, relying on which other persons have altered their position to their prejudice." 28. The written arguments submitted by the District School Boards as are mentioned above, instead of dealing with the basic, fundamental and foundational aspects of the matter sought to create confusion. The said School Boards in their written arguments sought to confuse the entire matter by focusing on the question of complexity without any bearing on law. The said written arguments are devoid of coherence and consistency and neither does it fit with acts, rules and notifications nor the same conform to the principles of natural justice and concept of public employment. 29. The respondents namely, the District School Boards, in my view, failed to act fairly, reasonably and with sense of responsibility in dealing with the case of candidates while preparing panel in contravention with the established principles of law and also recommendations of the Pay Commission. 29. The respondents namely, the District School Boards, in my view, failed to act fairly, reasonably and with sense of responsibility in dealing with the case of candidates while preparing panel in contravention with the established principles of law and also recommendations of the Pay Commission. The way in which the legitimate claims of the petitioners to be appointed as Primary Teachers have conceiviously been over-looked and with held in a non-challenge manner by the respondents and their subordinate District Authorities, keeping the petitioners in uncertainty and thereby jeopardising their rights to be empanelled and appointed. Such acts of the respondents are resorted to form with helding the names of the petitioners and eligible candidates in the panel and denial of the appointments in favour of the eligible trained candidates in the absence of good faith and settled discrimination points at their conduct. The active impartiality and cautious deliberation of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and other District Authorities in Civil Rule No. 610(W) of 1988 could have removed the arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in the preparation vis-a-vis approval of panel in the state of affairs and arbitrary assumption of jurisdiction not sanctioned by the Respondent Nos. 6 to 20. The another material point before this Court is as to how, why and in what circumstances the Public officers and the Officers of the District School Boards resorted to unusual procedure and adopted unwarranted method by preparing the panel without having regard to the binding nature of the Pay Commission recommendations. It is also to be taken into account the common objection of the respondents to the claims of the petitioners against appointment or recruitment of teachers has had no legal factual foundation. How the untrained teachers could be preferred to trained teachers who underwent training and obtained monthly stipend ? The case of the respondents presents a very sad state of affairs in as much as preparation and approval of panel as also appointment of Primary Teachers demonstrates absence of fairness, rationality and procedural propriety in the appointment of untrained teachers when thousands of passed candidates are available. All the Notifications, Government Orders warrant the petitioners ought to hive been appointed as Primary Teachers in preference to the untrained teachers according to the seniority of the trained teachers out of the names obtained from the Employment Exchanges. All the Notifications, Government Orders warrant the petitioners ought to hive been appointed as Primary Teachers in preference to the untrained teachers according to the seniority of the trained teachers out of the names obtained from the Employment Exchanges. Proviso of Annexure-* of Memo No. 372-Edn (B) dated July 31, 1981 G.O. 459-Edn. (P) / 3P-16/81 dated 4th August, 1981 instead of being followed are departed from without any rational jurisdiction. Such departure and deviation without any justification constitutes an in road into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No answer could be found from the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents as to how the recommendation of the Pay Commission could be by-passed and given a complete go-bye. It also remains completely a mystry in what circumstances the concerned authorities improperly, illegally and unauthorisedly kept the petitioners out of the employment for a long period and made appointments of untrained and uneligible candidates in un-autborised manner. The untrained persons having no requisite qualifications and without required training in violation of West Bengal Rule of Primary Education Act, 1963 and Rules and Notifications made thereunder are given appointments. The ratio of quota system as repeatedly referred to by the respondents and such repetitive acts committed in violation of the provisions were considered in several decisions of this court in several cases where ratio of quota system was quashed. 30. From the Government Order dated 4th August, 1981, the fundamental aspect thus emerged are as follows :– "No untrained candidate can be appointed if trained candidates are available. Preference should be given to the trained candidates for appointment while appoints are given out of the panel. The District School Board and District inspector of Schools or Primary Education should prepare the panel as the case may be form amongst the names obtained from the Employment Exchange of the District concerned." In this connection it is necessary to place on record in terms of the directions passed by the court that most of the District School Boards did not produce records of the case. Apace from the above, most of the respondents have not used definite opposition. Therefore, the basic challenge and assertion under averment made in the application go on change. Reference and reliance to the following decisions of the Supreme Court was made : (20) AIR 1964 SC 962 at p. 970. Apace from the above, most of the respondents have not used definite opposition. Therefore, the basic challenge and assertion under averment made in the application go on change. Reference and reliance to the following decisions of the Supreme Court was made : (20) AIR 1964 SC 962 at p. 970. (21) AIR 1973 SC 627 . In the case of Controller of Court of Ward, Kolhapur and Anr. v. G. N. Ghorpada & Ors., ( AIR 1973 SC 627 ) it is held–" Where in a petition under Article 226 claiming petitioner’s right to possession of certain lands of private trust, the opposite party did not file any counter-affidavit although on several occasions they had obtained adjournments for filing it and on the date of hearing the High Court rejected its application for permission to file counter affidavit on ground of inordinate delay and also on ground that the said party had ample opportunity to traverse the statements made in petitioner's affidavit, on appeal by opposite party to Supreme Court it was held that discretion was not exercised or practice so as to warrant interference by Supreme Court. In the absence of any counter affidavit, the High Court had to accept the statements made on affidavit by petitioner therein as prima facie evidence of his right to possession of the lands in question." Similarly, in the case of C. S. Rowjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh, ( AIR 1964 SC 962 ) it is held that the "The learned Judges of the High Court have not rejected the allegations regarding the objective facts on the ground of their patent improbability or absurdity, nor did the learned Advocate General make any submission on the selines. The next question is as regards the interference to be drawn from these facts which in the absence of their denial have to be taken as true. It is here that we have felt the greatest uneasiness because if the facts which serve as the foundation for the plea of mala fides are made out, the only question would be whether the interference of mala fides on the part of the Chief Minister would be a reasonable one to draw.........................There has been no denial by the Chief Minister nor an affidavit by any person who claims or can claim to know personally about the truth about these allegations. The Secretary to the Home Department.........has filed a counter affidavit in which the allegations we have set out earlier have been formally denied...............The learned Advocate General did not suggest that the Court could act upon this second hand denial by the Chief Minister, as the statement of the Secretary is merely heresay. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the allegations that the Chief Minister was motivated by bias and personal ill-will against the appellants, stand unrebutted "................................................................................................................ ......................................In the absence of affidavits or of materials placed before the court by these authorities the court is left to judge of the veracity of the allegations merely on tests of probability with nothing more substantial by way of answer. This is precisely the situation in which we find ourselves in the present case..........It is no doubt, true that allegations of mala fide and of improper motives on the part of those in power are frequently made and their frequency has increased in recent times." 31. The District School Board (Primary), Birbhum, has produced some papers for inspection from which it is apparent that only female candidates were appointed and that too was also not in accordance with law, statutory orders and Government orders with statutory force. 32. Specific reference as regards the illegality crept in the panel at page 63 of the written arguments submitted by the respondents is warranted to be referred. Against Serial Nos. 67 to 76 it will appear that though the candidates are only passed Class VIII examination. According to the petitioners such instances are numerous. The panels were prepared in breach of the Government orders dated August 4, 1981. Such panel from Sl. Nos. 67 to 76 are in the manner following : Sl. Name & address Qualification Regn. No. N.C.C. No. Date of birth Remarks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 67. Smt. Maya Dasi, VII(P) Vill & P.O. Bara, Mother W-56/82 153.90 7. 1. 56 Scheduled P.S. Nalhati, Training. -caste. Dist. Birbhum. 68. Smt. Lila Ganguly -do- W-108/78 -do- 7.2.44 General P.O. & P. S. Rampurhat Dist. Birbhum. 69. Smt. Nita (Das) -do- W-146/78 -do- 22.3.54 -do- Guha, Palkpara, P. S. Nalhati, Birbhum. 70. Smt. Narayani -do- W-195/78 -do- 28.9.47 -do- Majumdar, P. O. and Vill. Bircha- -ndra Pur, P. S. Maureshwar, Birbhum. 71. Smt. Durga -do- W-393/78 -do- 18.11. 47 -do- Pramanik Vill. Mehidnagar, P. O. Goupur, Mayureshwar, Birbhum. 72. Birbhum. 69. Smt. Nita (Das) -do- W-146/78 -do- 22.3.54 -do- Guha, Palkpara, P. S. Nalhati, Birbhum. 70. Smt. Narayani -do- W-195/78 -do- 28.9.47 -do- Majumdar, P. O. and Vill. Bircha- -ndra Pur, P. S. Maureshwar, Birbhum. 71. Smt. Durga -do- W-393/78 -do- 18.11. 47 -do- Pramanik Vill. Mehidnagar, P. O. Goupur, Mayureshwar, Birbhum. 72. Smt. Basanti VIII(P) W-237/78 153.90 12.10.49 General, Adhikari (Bandel) (Mother Vill. Hastikanda, Training) P.O. Kastogora, P. S. Rampurhat, Dist. Birbhum. 73. Radha Rani Das, -do- W-819/80 -do- l. 9. 48 -do- P. O. and Vill. Mayureshwar, Dist. Birbhum. 74. Smt. Jyotsna -do- W-829/80 -do- 16. 1. 47 -do- Bhattacharyya, P. O. and Vill. Mirchanda Pur, P. O. Mayureshwar, Dist. Birbhum. 75. Smt. Serumneshra -do- W-265/81 -do- 24. 5. 53 -do- Khatun, P. O. and Vill. Nalhati Birbhum. 76. Smt.......Khatun -do- W-293/83 -do- 28. 10. 66 -do- c/o Hatem Sk. Vill. Kanutia P. O. Kanutia, Mayureshwar, Dist. Birbhum. 33. The instances of such cases may be of paramount importance. Only the instances cited by the petitioners are illustrative in nature but are not exhaustive in character. When the Administrative orders specifically provided, as claimed by the Writ petitioners, which could not be otherwise challenged by the respondents effectively it is wholly unwarranted and unauthorized on the part of the District School Board to appoint untrained teachers, leaving aside those trained teachers who have and had awaited for a long time after having duly registered their names in the Employment Exchange of the District concerned. In my view, it is also not open to the District School Boards to follow ratio and quota system. It is further not open to the District School Boards to follow the ratio or quota System inasmuch as the Government Notification relating to ratio or quota system stands quashed by this Hon'ble court, as indicated above. 34. Similarly, instances about the appointment of untrained teacher are cited as above. Such instances are also illustrative in nature but not exhaustive in character. Some of the instances are quoted below. 35. The written arguments thus submitted by some of the District School Boards are effectively examined. It is apparent had none of the said District School Boards, although served with the copy of the writ application, did not file any affidavit-in-opposition dealing with the basic principles of the writ petitioners. Some of the instances are quoted below. 35. The written arguments thus submitted by some of the District School Boards are effectively examined. It is apparent had none of the said District School Boards, although served with the copy of the writ application, did not file any affidavit-in-opposition dealing with the basic principles of the writ petitioners. The said District School Boards, whose arguments are quoted above, tried to by-pass the Government orders that there is no power to appoint untrained School Final passed candidates. This stand of the said District School Boards is required to be decided on the touch stone of the Government order dated 4th August, 1981. The relevant portion of the Government order dated August 4, 1981 has been already quoted. In my opinion, there is no substance in contention of the District School Boards in view of the relevant Government orders and Notifications cited by the Writ petitioners showing that only trained teachers will be appointed. While appointments are made, preference should be given to trained teachers and the panel prepared out of the names sent by the concerned District School Boards. The District School Boards contended about its competence to appoint teachers on the basis of the ratio 50 : 50 and 60 : 40 basis between trained and untrained teachers. It is not necessary to go further into detail excepting that those ratio of 50 : 50 and 60 : 40 have already been set aside by this Hon'ble Court. The Government Notification dated August 29, 1984 is pertinent to be taken into account. I am satisfied with the Notification as setout below : "I am directed to say that the Hon'ble High Court has recently quashed the Government Order No. 503-Edn. (P) dated 20.4.77 and the Government Order No. 421-Edn. (P) dated 27.2.78. I am, therefore, to request you kindly to keep in abeyance, forth all proposals relating to the selection of sites for setting up new primary schools, recognition of new primary schools and appointment of primary teachers until further orders." But the said respondents took up a very irrational stand by contending the District School Boards, as stated above, are not bound by Pay Commission's recommendation as the same are governed and controlled by Acts and Rules framed thereunder, in its desparate bid to justify the abuse of power. The said respondent took up the iniquitous approach which is also admitted by the said respondent that the advertisement was published but no names were asked from the Employment Exchange. The rule does not empower by which the advertisements were given for appointment of primary teachers. In conclusionary portion of paragraph 16 of the said writ application regarding empanelment of Subrato Palit, Haripal, a dead person, is shocking. The panel of the District School Board, Birbhum and also from the panel of District School Board, Hooghly where without having regard to the Notifications and Pay Commission's recommendations, empanelment has been made, is a clear breach of provisions as indicated above. 36. In the case of Purushottamlal and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (Supra), the Government set up Pay Commission to enquire into the emoluments and service conditions of all employees. After accepting the said recommendations, the Government cannot accept and implement the same in cases of all employees including the employees appointed comprising of stages from initial appointment to termination. 37. The written arguments filed by the District School Boards as are dealt with hereinbefore could have been effectively dealt here had the records of the case been produced. Only some of the records were placed before this court on behalf of the District School Boards, Hooghly and Birbhum. The other School Boards did not produce any records. It is to be borne in mind that this court issued rule in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d). There is a prayer for writ in the nature of Certiorari, that being the position, it was incumbent upon the respondents to produce all records relating to the cases of the writ petitioners. No record was produced on behalf of the District School Boards, Murshidabad, Burdwan, Hooghly and 24-Parganas. Directions were passed for filing affidavit-in-opposition on diverse dates but most of the District School Boards did not file affidavit-in-opposition. The contention of the most of the District School Boards have been noted above. In my opinion, District School Boards, instead of adhering to the Government Circulars, resorted to ad-hoc procedure and system of ad-hocism has been introduced with a view to perpetrating illegality in the appointment of primary teachers. On perusal of the panel prepared by the District School Board, Hooghly, it will appear that the said panel suffered from violation of the Government orders. On perusal of the panel prepared by the District School Board, Hooghly, it will appear that the said panel suffered from violation of the Government orders. It is not understood, while it is specifically provided that only trained teachers would be appointed, it is not open to the District School Boards to appoint untrained teachers in place of trained teachers, as stated by the writ petitioners who are arbitrarily left out. Most of the District School Boards did not file affidavit-in-opposition inspite of specific directions by this court passed from time to time. Some of the School Boards filed written arguments and the said written arguments, in my view, seek to establish its stand by referring to some Government orders. The District School Boards, in their districts with a view to register the appointment of trainee teachers, took up a very curious stand, which is not irrational and startling but also shocks the conscience of this Court. The plea that there is nothing to show that only trained candidates should be appointed, in my view, there is no substance in contention in view of the relevant Government Orders and Notifications as are quoted in extension hereinbefore. The Notifications show that only trained teachers will be appointed. While giving appointments reference to be given to trained teachers. The panels should be prepared out of the names sent by the concerned Employment Exchanges. 38. That the claims of the District School Boards that the panel prepared by the respective District School Boards are valid and the same validity remains in force only for a period of 12 months subject to the extension by the State Government by further 6 months. At his stage, it is necessary to refer to the challenge of the writ petitioners against the panels prepared by the District School Boards is founded upon arbitrariness. Arbitrariness, as is stated now, is sworn enemy of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. Arbitrariness antithesis of rule of law. If the panels suffer from incurable in efection of arbitrariness, violation of the provisions of the Acts, Rules, Notifications and Orders, any appointment made pursuant to the said panel is liable to be declared as illegal and unauthorised. 39. Arbitrariness antithesis of rule of law. If the panels suffer from incurable in efection of arbitrariness, violation of the provisions of the Acts, Rules, Notifications and Orders, any appointment made pursuant to the said panel is liable to be declared as illegal and unauthorised. 39. After careful consideration of the factual aspects as well as points raised in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehradardi reported in AIR 1981 SC 487 at 493 where the Court held that the procedure adopted by the Society cannot be said to be arbitrary merely because its refusal to take into account the marks obtained by candidates at the qualifying examination but chose to regulate the admission by entrance tests. In the instant case, the concerned authority without adhering to the Acts, Rules, and the Notifications and the Government orders as are referred to above adopted the procedure which is ad-hoc in character and arbitrary in principles. 40. Further, reference is made to circulars in their written arguments by the District School Boards as is indicated above, does not stand a moment's scrutiny. The Basic stand of District School Boards is mutually inconsistent and self-contradictory. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the decision cited by the learned Counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners as are discussed above, I am of the view that the trained teachers should have preference to the untrained teachers. The representation of the facts and promises made by the Government as would appear from one of the agreements executed by the writ petitioners prior to the training, Pay Commission recommendation and Government orders mentioned hereinbefore are binding on the authorities. It must be recorded that the District School Boards failed to act fairly, justly and with a sense of responsibility while dealing with the preparation of the panels which has not been done in accordance to the Government orders as also the recommendation of the Pay Commission. Petitioners and those candidates who fulfilled the requirement as are laid down in the Governments and Pay Commission recommendation are declared for being empanelled and appointed as Primary teachers. The manner in which such legitimate claims of the petitioners and the eligible candidates has been overlooked and ignored in an arbitrary manner by the authorities concerned exhibits extreme form of arbitrariness and discriminatory treatment. The manner in which such legitimate claims of the petitioners and the eligible candidates has been overlooked and ignored in an arbitrary manner by the authorities concerned exhibits extreme form of arbitrariness and discriminatory treatment. In those circumstances as aforesaid the failure on the part of the District School Boards to produce the records relating to the panel compels the court to reach to the conclusion that all the panels prepared by the said District School Boards in contravention of the Pay Commission's recommendations made in proviso to Annexure* of Memo No. 272-Edn. (P) dated July 31, 1981 ultra vires the Rules as also the Government order and/or the instructions consequently made as a result of the appointment of the persons made on the basis of such unauthorised, illegal and ultra vires panel cannot be validated and such services could not be treated to be regular service under the District School Boards inasmuch as the same is contrary to law. I cannot but hold the writ petitioners and the other added parties who fulfill the requirements are entitled to be empanelled and are declared eligible for appointments in preference to those particularly untrained teachers in accordance with the Government orders as quoted hereinabove. Respondents, each one of them and their subordinates, servants, are bound to implement the Pay Commission's recommendations in the case of the petitioners and those trained teachers. In view of the facts stated hereinabove and by reason of the publication made in the Newspapers the order passed by this Court shall be implemented by all the District School Boards in fitness of things. I direct that a writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the Respondents, each one of them, their subordinates, servants, agents and further to empanel the candidates against the vacancies in the Districts of the State of West Bengal with immediate effect and further commanding them and each one of them to take steps to act in such a manner that the trained candidates are given appointments in the recognised Primary Schools of each districts to fill up the vacancies for which the panel is prepared and preference shall be given to the trained candidates after such preference to trained candidates is effected, the Respondents shall be at liberty to act in terms of the orders and directions given by this court. It is also directed that the Respondents are hereby prohibited from giving appointments to untrained candidates and the appointments of the untrained persons in the Primary Schools of the each districts is to be treated as irregular one. 41. The District School Boards who are parties to this application shall strictly, rigorously and rigidly scrutinise the panel and exclude those who are not otherwise eligible for being empanelled. 42. List of the trained candidates as shown in the list should be treated as eligible for being empanelled and/or appointed. 43. The candidates who do not qualify the requirements as laid down by the Rules and Government orders and/or the Administrative orders should be excluded from the zone of consideration for the purpose of being empanelled and/or for appointment. Panel thus made should be recast in the manner as indicated above. Accordingly, all the panels by reasons of the order of the Court should not be treated as being invalid or the said panels should be effectively, actively, and properly checked scrutinised and verified and thereafter the empanelment in the manner indicated above should be made for the purpose of appointment of eligible candidates. Any appointment made in contravention of the Government Rules, Order and Circulars are hereby declared to be authorised. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Let the writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents to cancel those panels, if prepared, in contravention of the Rules and the Government Orders and the Circulars and further commanding the respondents to empanel the teachers including the petitioners for appointment as primary teachers and treat the appointment of the untrained teachers in contravention of the rules and also the Government orders as illegal and also directing the respondents to fill up the vacancies by appointing the trained teachers. In the event, it is found that vacancies are still existing, the said vacancies shall be filled in strictly in accordance with the Government orders and/or the instructions. Let the writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to cancel and withdraw the panels legally prepared by the respondents and the District Boards. By an order dated March 7, 1989 a number of applications for addition of parties which are filed after March 7, 1989 are also allowed. Let the writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to cancel and withdraw the panels legally prepared by the respondents and the District Boards. By an order dated March 7, 1989 a number of applications for addition of parties which are filed after March 7, 1989 are also allowed. The decisions in this case shall apply to those applicants who are eligible for being appointed in terms of the statutory rules, Government orders and circulars. Respondents are directed to secure the compliance of the order passed by this court and implement the directions made herein above. There should be no appointment any person or candidate who do not fulfil the conditions as laid down by the respondents. Any appointment made from outside panel is declared illegal. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed without there being any costs.