JUDGMENT Leave is granted in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. By consent of the parties, the appeal and the application are both treated as on day's list and are taken up for bearing. 2. After hearing the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the State respondents, we dispose of the appeal and the application in the following manner. 3. It appears, that a panel was prepared by the school authorities in question, regarding appointment of the Head Mistress, in the month of August 1993 and that was duly sent to the District Inspector of Schools concerned for taking necessary steps regarding approval of such panel. Since nothing was communicated to the school authorities for a long time regarding the fact of such panel, the writ petitioner who figured first in the panel-moved a writ application against such Inaction of the State-respondents including the District Inspector of School concerned upon which an order was made on 28th September, 1994 by Altamas Kabir, J., directing the District Inspector of Schools concerned to communicate its decision to the school authorities in respect of the panel prepared in the months of August 1993 within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of the said order. Subsequently the District Inspector of Schools (SE). Calcutta by its Memo No. 3270 dated 21st November. 1994 asked the Secretary of the school in question to make a panel afresh of the candidates previously Interviewed for the post of Head Mistress of the school, treating such direction as final. The said memo is made Annexure 'H' to the day application From the said memo it does not appear at all that the direction given by Altamas Kibir, J., earlier on 28th September, 1994. The said memo is made Annexure 'H' to the day application From the said memo it does not appear at all that the direction given by Altamas Kibir, J., earlier on 28th September, 1994. as referred to above, was carried out by the authority concerned, inasmuch as it did not contain and/or refer to any decision of the authority concerned in respect of the said panel, which the authority was to convey to the school authorities, as per the said order of Altamas Kabir, J., Against the said order, the writ petitioner moved another writ application before Tarun Chatterjee, J., who by his order dated 9th February, 1995 granted an order of injunction restraining the respondents including the school authorities from giving any effect to or further effect to the Memo No. 3270 dated 21st November, 1994 Issued by the respondent No.3 and the purported decision of the Managing Committee of the school dated 10th December, 1994 for taking steps for a fresh selection and for preparation of a fresh panel of the candidates. Thereafter, Shree Rang Misra, J., on 25th July, 1995, however directed the Director of School Education to consider the case of the petitioner and to take decision to this regard in the light of the order passed by Altamas Kablr, J., dated 28th September, 1994 within a period of three weeks from the date of communication. Nothing hat been done by the said respondent pursuant to the order of Shree Rang Misra, J., and hence the present appeal. - 4. The records have been produced before us today From the recorded it appears, that only certain notes had been given by not Shri A. Mullick purported to be an Assistant Inspector of Schools to the effect that the earlier panel was defective for certain reasons as mentioned therein. It appears that the said note only remained in the note sheet and never saw the light of the day, nor was it communicated to the school authorities at any point of time. Moreover, the Assistant Inspector of Schools was not the proper authority to consider a panel. In such view of the matter, it cannot be held that the authority concerned had acted as per the order of Altamas Kabir, J , dated 28th September, 1994 or even as per the order of Shree Rang Misra, J , dated 25th July, 1995 at all. In such view of the matter, it cannot be held that the authority concerned had acted as per the order of Altamas Kabir, J , dated 28th September, 1994 or even as per the order of Shree Rang Misra, J , dated 25th July, 1995 at all. This shows what scant respect the State-respondents have towards the order; passed by this Hon'ble Court. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the State-respondents on instructions from the present District Inspector of Schools (SE). Calcutta who is present in Court that the decision of the school authorities regarding the panel prepared in August 1993 was duly communicated to the school authorities, but nothing appears from the records of the case which are brought before this Court that such decision was ever communicated to the school authorities or that any such decision was taken by the District inspector of Schools concerned canceling and/or rejecting the earlier panel prepared in August 1993 The Memo dated 21st November, 1994 issued by the respondent No.3 as referred to above, also does not contain any such decision nor there is any whisper regarding any decision taken by the District's school authorities on the earlier panel. 6. In Such view of the matter, we are of the view, that the District's school authorities without taking any decision on the earlier panel prepared in August 1993 and communication the same to the school authorities, as was required to do as per the order dated 28th September, 1994 passed by the Altamas Kablr, J., had issued the Memo No. 3270 dated 21st November, 1994 without applying their minds at all. It is, therefore, now too late in the day to contend that the District Inspector of Schools concerned had cancelled the earlier panel prepared by the school authorities regarding appointment of the Head Mistress In August 1993, when nothing transpires from the record that the District Inspector of Schools had actually taken such decision and communicated the same to the school authorities. Accordingly, the Memo No. 3270 dated 21st November, 1994 Issued by the respondent No.3, therefore, stands quashed for the reasons as aforesaid. 7. The District Inspector of Schools concerned namely the respondent No.3, is, therefore. Accordingly, the Memo No. 3270 dated 21st November, 1994 Issued by the respondent No.3, therefore, stands quashed for the reasons as aforesaid. 7. The District Inspector of Schools concerned namely the respondent No.3, is, therefore. directed to give his approval of the panel prepared by the school authorities in the month of August 1993 regarding the appointment of the Head Mistress In the school, which was sent to him by the school authorities immediately after the appointment was so prepared, which fact was not disputed without any delay and communicate such approval to the school authorities positively within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order to the respondent No.3. The time limit so fixed above, is peremptory and mandatory. The District Inspector of Schools concerned would also its such approval report to the Director of School Education, Government of West Bengal immediately after the approval Is given by the District Inspector of Schools concerned in the matter. 8. This order is made in presence of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta who is present in Court and who is the respondent No.3 and who was instructed Mr. Prasanta Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate to make submissions on his behalf as referred to above. All parties will act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on usual undertaking. Mitra, J. Sengupta, J.