JUDGMENT The writ petitioner moved this writ application challenging inter alia, the selection of the respondent No. 7 for the post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science in Tulin Jai-Siaram High (H.S.) School, Tulin, P.S. Jhalda, Dist. Purulia. 2. Sworn of all details, the facts of the case inter alia, are that on or about 3rd April, 1995, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia, granted permission to the abovementioned school for filling up two posts of Assistant Teachers in the said school. One of the said posts was an Assistant Teacher in Political Science having qualification Honours/M.A. (Political Science) preferably trained. At the time of granting such permission, the Recruitment Rules, 1993 were in force. On or about 6th November, 1995 the District Employment Exchange, Purulia, sponsored 20 names for the aforesaid posts including writ petitioner's name, but the respondent No. 7's name was not sponsored. On or about 1st of December, 1995, the Recruitment Rules of 1995 came into force cancelling all the previous orders of Recruitment Rules with effect from that date. On or about 11th April, 1996, the respondent No. 7 Biswanath Barui moved a writ application in this Hon'ble Court being C.O. No. 10(W) of 1996 and obtained an ex parte order. On or about 21st June, 1996 the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia, modified the earlier permission granted by him for filling up all the post of Assistant Teacher including Political Science as referred to above, changing the qualification for the said posts and such modification was made after the respondent No. 7 moved the writ application being C.O. No. 10(W) of 1996. The modification was to the extent that Honours/M.A. candidates in Political Science must have English with 300 marks as also Bengali as their combination subject. Interview letters were duly issued by the School Authority fixing the date of interview on 29th September. 1996. On or about September 11, 1996 Mr. Gouri Shankar Dey, learned Advocate, wrote a letter to the Secretary and to the Headmaster of the said school on the basis of the order passed in C.O. No. 10(W) of 1996 asking the Secretary to stop the interview till fresh names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, and the Secretary by his letter dated 23rd September, 1996 informed the writ petitioner about the cancellation of such interview. Fresh names were sought for by the School Authority from the Employment Exchange and on or about 19th May, 1997 the Employment Exchange sponsored 13 names including that of the respondent No. 7 Biswanath Barul showing him as scheduled caste candidate and physically handicapped being hard of hearing. The Secretary of the school by his letter dated 25th June, 1997 issued the interview letters re-fixing the date of interview on 19th July, 1997. In the said interview, the respondent No. 7 scored more than the other candidates including the writ petitioner. Accordingly, a panel was prepared consisting of 3 candidates wherein the respondent No. 7 was given the 1st position and the writ petitioner was given the 3rd position. On or about 5th of August, 1997, the writ petitioner moved another writ application being W.P. No. 15734 (W) of 1997 challenging the selection process and illegal markings given by the selectors and also allowing the candidates who had no combination subject in Bangali in Graduation level like respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 7 also moved another writ application in the month of September 1997 being W.P. No. 19411(W) of 1997 without making the present writ petitioner as a party therein. The Hon’ble Justice Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee disposed of the same directing the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia, to consider the panel prepared by the Selection Committee. The writ petitioner's writ application being W.P. No. 15734(W) of 1997 was also disposed of directing the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia, to consider the grievances of the writ petitioner and to pass a reasoned order after hearing all the parties concerned. The District Inspector of Schools (S.B.), Purulia, heard the matter on 30th September, 1997, being Annexure 'F' to the writ application and held inter alia, that he was of the opinion that the panel in question which was prepared by the duly constituted Selection Committee and approved by the Managing Committee merited approval in the following manner :- 1. Biswanath Barul, B.A. (H) (Pol. Sc.), B. Ed.-1st 2. Bijoy Ranjan Kumar, M.A. (Pol. Sc.), B. Ed.-2nd 3. Lalin Kumar Mahato, M.A. (Pol. Sc.), B. Ed -3rd. The said decision or the District Inspector of Schools (S.E). Purulia, is the subject-matter of challenge in the wilt application. 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, for the School Authority, Private Respondent and also for the State. 4. Mr. Bijoy Ranjan Kumar, M.A. (Pol. Sc.), B. Ed.-2nd 3. Lalin Kumar Mahato, M.A. (Pol. Sc.), B. Ed -3rd. The said decision or the District Inspector of Schools (S.E). Purulia, is the subject-matter of challenge in the wilt application. 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, for the School Authority, Private Respondent and also for the State. 4. Mr. R.L. Maitra, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner contended inter alia, that the school authority had acted illegally in following 1993 Recruitment Rules, though at the time of interview held on 19th August, 1997, the Recruitment Rules, 1995 had already come into force with effect from 1st of December, 1995 and if the Recruitment Rules, 1995 had been followed then certainly the respondent No. 7 could not have secured the 1st position, inasmuch as, he did not have Bengali upto his graduation. Mr. Maitra further contended that though the respondent No. 7 had passed Honours Examination subsequently to his passing B.A. Examination in Pass Course, that Honours Degree was obtained in condensed course and as such the District Inspector of Schools concerned should not have accorded approval to the panel prepared by the Selection Committee and approved by the school authority. 5. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the Managing Committee of the School, contended inter alia, that their prior permission for filling up the post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science was given by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia, by his Memo No. 674 dated 3rd of March, 1995 when admittedly 1993 Recruitment Rules were in force. In the said prior permission, qualification prescribed by the post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science was given as Honours/M.A. in Political Science preferably trained. No whisper of having English with 300 marks and also Bengali upto graduation was there in the said prior permission. Since interview could not be taken as per the said prior permission because of pending litigation in this Hon'ble Court, after the bar was removed, the District School Authorities had modified the permission in 1996 to the extent that such Honours/M.A. candidates in Political Science should have English with 300 marks as also Bengali as their combination subject which was the standard prescribed under 1995 Recruitment Rules. 6. According to Mr. 6. According to Mr. Ghosh therefore, when the processing for filling up the said post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science had started at a time when 1993 Recruitment Rules were in force, no matter whether subsequent Recruitment Rules were introduced, and no matter whether the interview for the post had taken place subsequent to the introduction of the subsequent Recruitment Rules, the recruitment was to be made as per the 1993 Recruitment Rules. In support of his contention Mr. Ghosh relied upon a Bench Decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of (1) Basudeb Bag & Anr. v. Bhaskar Chandra Kar & Ors., 1996(1) CLJ 230 . 7. Mr. Dey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent No. 7, contended inter alia, that the said respondent duly passed the Political Science as regular Honours candidate from the Ranchi University and the Controller of Examinations, Ranchi University, also certified that the course studied by the respondent No. 7 was a regular Honours Course of the Ranchi University Mr. Dey further contended that the respondent No. 7 had been placed in 1st position in the panel upon securing 45.51 marks and the writ petitioner had secured 41.30 marks and was placed in 3rd position. Even assuming but not admitting, that the respondent No. 7 had passed a Condensed Honours Course, in that event also, only 2.50 marks would be deducted from his total marks but in that case also the position in the panel would remain unaltered Mr. Dey contended further that regarding awarding of marks at the interview and the assessment made by the Selection Committee, the Writ Court cannot be moved in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in (2) AIR 1990 SC 434 ; (3) AIR 1992 SC 1806 ; (4) 1993(3) SCC 124 and (5) 1995(3) SCC 486 . It was also the contention of Mr. Dey that the petitioner being unsuccessful in the selection to secure the highest marks, cannot challenge the selection in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1995(3) SCC 486 and (6) AIR 1997 SC 1486. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, the processing for selecting an Assistant Teacher in Political Science had started at a time when 1993 Recruitment Rules were in force and not the 1995 Recruitment Rules. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, the processing for selecting an Assistant Teacher in Political Science had started at a time when 1993 Recruitment Rules were in force and not the 1995 Recruitment Rules. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia, granted permission for filling up two posts of Assistant Teachers in the school in question, one of them being for the post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science, having Honours/M.A. Degree in Political Science, and preferably trained. The respondent No. 7, from the record it appears, had the said requisite qualification. The Recruitment Rules of 1995 had come into force with effect from 1st December, 1995 and the modified permission granted by the District Inspector of Schools in 1996 specified the requisite qualification as Honours/M.A. in Political Science and English with 300 marks and also Bengali as a combination subject in the graduation level and preferably trained. In such view of the matter, since processing for recruitment of an Assistant Teacher in political Science had started before 1st December, 1995 i.e. at a time when 1993 Rules were in force, even if the interview had taken place subsequent to the introduction of the 1995 Rules, selection had to be made as per the 1993 Rules and not as per the subsequent 1995 Rules, as the subsequent Rules could not be given retrospective effect. 9. I also get support in this matter from the Bench Decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Basudeb Bag and Another (supra) which was also a decision on similar facts. It has been held inter alia, in the said decision as follows :- "Grant of prior permission by the District Inspector of Schools plays an important role, inasmuch as, in absence of such permission neither any advertisement can be made nor the names of eligible candidates can be asked for from the concerned Employment Exchange. It has been held inter alia, in the said decision as follows :- "Grant of prior permission by the District Inspector of Schools plays an important role, inasmuch as, in absence of such permission neither any advertisement can be made nor the names of eligible candidates can be asked for from the concerned Employment Exchange. We are, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, of the opinion that keeping in view the fact that prior permission was granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 14.5.81 and advertisement was made in terms of the existing Rules on 1.6.81, the process of selection had already started." The Division Beach Judgment also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (7) Y.V. Rangaiah and Others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others, AIR 1983 SC 852 , wherein it was held inter alia, that vacancy which occurred prior to the amended Rules, would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. The said Division Beach of this Hon'ble Court also relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (8) A.A. Calton v. The Director of Education and Another, AIR 1983 SC 1143 regarding the retrospective effect of any statutory provision. The Supreme Court in the said decision in AIR 1983 SC 1143 clearly observed inter alia, as follows:- "But it is equally well settled that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing right, unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retrospective effect." 10. The above two decisions of the Supreme Court were also followed in its subsequent decision in the case of (9) P. Mahendran and Others v. State of Karnataka and Other., AIR 1990 SC 405 , wherein the Supreme Court had held that as the process of selection in the case before the Supreme Court had commenced in 1983 and as such, it had to be completed in accordance with law as it stood at the commencement of selection. 11. 11. Therefore, it is quite clear, that since prior permission was granted in the present case by the District Inspector of Schools concerned for filling up the post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science in April 1995 and the school authority started the processing as per the said prior approval and asked for names of suitable candidate from the local Employment Exchange on 6th November, 1995, no matter whether the interview had been held in 1996, when 1995 Recruitment Rules were in force having been introduced with effect from 1st December, 1995 but not with any retrospective effect, and keeping in view the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court as well as the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I have no other option but to hold that selection to the said post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science had to be made as per the 1993 Rules, since, the prior permission for selection was granted in April 1995 by the District Inspector of Schools concerned when 1993 Rules were in force. The first contention of Mr. Maitra, therefore, fails. 12. So far as Mr. Maitra's second contention that the Honours Degree obtained by the respondent No. 7 was not a regular Honours Degree but such degree was obtained in a condensed course run by the Ranchi University is concerned, it would appear from the certificate issued by the Controller of Examinations, Ranchi University, dated 3rd January, 1998 that the respondent No. 7 had passed the Political Science (Honours) (Condensed Course) Examination held in the month of December 1987 as a regular Political Science (Honours) student from Doranda College, Ranchi. The Doranda College Authority also had issued a certificate on 23rd December, 1997 to the effect that the respondent No. 7 was a regular student of the said College in B.A. (Honours) Course session 1985-86 and secured II Class in B.A. (Condensed Course) Examination, 1986 held in December 1987 and he will be considered as a 'Regular Honours' as per Rules of the University. 13. 13. The learned Advocate for the writ petitioner has refused to the Memo No. 9 13-Edn.(S)/6C-17/92 dated 22nd October, 1992 issued the Assistant Secretary, Government of West Bengal Education Department, Secondary Branch, wherefrom it appears that the Ranchi University has been accepted as a recognised University and its decree also are acceptable for appointment in Government aided educational institutions of West Bengal, but it has been observed therein that the one-year Honours degree of the said University cannot be equated with regular Honours degree but may be treated as special Honours degree. However, even if it is held that the one-year Honours degree of Ranchi University is a special Honours degree for that 2.50 marks would be deducted from the total marks obtained by the writ petitioner and in that case his total marks would come down to 43.01 which also would be more than what the writ petitioner had obtained, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner had secured only 41.30 marks. 14. Lastly if the respondent No. 7's appointment is set aside, in that case, the second empanelled candidate would get the chance, but the writ petitioner who had secured the 3rd position in the panel would not be selected. In the present case the vitally affected person, if any is the second empanelled candidate but under no circumstances the writ petitioner can claim for a selection having secured the 3rd position in the panel. Thus by the impugned selection, no legal right of the writ petitioner has been impaired. Accordingly in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, the writ petition cannot succeed. The same is thus rejected without any order as to costs.