JUDGMENT Ajoy Nath Ray, J. 1. The writ petitioner's name was included as the third one in the panel for the Work Education Teacher which is the subject matter of this writ. 2. After the panel was sent to the D.I., before the approval came, the writ petitioner had moved an earlier writ. His case was that the names of the two other persons coming above him in the panel were wrongly included. According to the writ petitioner those two persons were not eligible as they did not hold proper degrees. 3. It was one of the eligibility conditions for appointment that the candidates hold a diploma after taking a course and passing the examination subsequent to attending the course in a P.G.B.T. College. The writ petitioner's case is that the other two persons attended a P.G.B.T. College at Sarisha which was and still is unrecognized by the respondent No.1-A, namely the D.P.I. 4. The first candidate in the panel Debasish Sarkar is the respondent No.16. The panel was approved in a manner which I shall mention hereafter. But after the approval of the panel the appointment was given to respondent No.16 and this appointment was approved by the D.I. namely, the respondent No.2. The 16th respondent has been working in the Golabari School from 22.1.1997. 5. The approval given by the D.I. to the panel question did not come in the usual cryptic way but it came as a reasoned decision. Such a reasoned decision had to be given because of the order passed in the first writ which I have mentioned before. This decision is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-D. 6. The second person in the panel, one Sarmila Biswas who is respondent No.17, has not appeared before me nor filed any affidavit. 7. The diploma of respondent No.16 was obtained after he appeared at the examination on the basis of an order passed by this Court in another writ to which the present writ petitioner was not a party. 8. To be more exact the order permitting the respondent No.16 to appear was passed in a contempt application which had been filed on the basis of an order passed at an interlocutory stage of that writ to which the present will petitioner was not a party. 9. 8. To be more exact the order permitting the respondent No.16 to appear was passed in a contempt application which had been filed on the basis of an order passed at an interlocutory stage of that writ to which the present will petitioner was not a party. 9. Without that order the respondent No.16 would never appear at the examination because the authority had not permitted the students of unrecognized institutions to take the examination at all. 10. The parent order in the said writ was passed on 24.9.1992 at the interlocutory stage by D.K. Basu, J., now retired, and the same Bench passed the order on the contempt application on 7.7.1993. 11. The marks sheet was issued on the basis of the examination held and the respondent No.16 obtained some 50% marks in the aggregate. 12. However, the authorities issued the marks sheet and the diploma specifically mentioning that those were without prejudice and that those were subsequent to orders passed by the High Court. 13. The Gazette Notification mentioning the name of the 16th respondent also mentions the Court's order. 14. The writ petitioner's main grievance is that a person coming from an unrecognized Institution cannot take the examination and, therefore, cannot get a diploma. The D.I. was to take a decision whether the panel including the names of those without prejudice diploma holders was correctly prepared. The D.I. should have taken a decision that they without prejudiced diplomas are insufficient for the purpose of getting appointment. 15. It cannot be denied that the order passed on the contempt application is still binding. There has been no appeal from it and the writ itself has not been disposed of. But that order only permitted the taking of examination. The grant of diploma and the given of marks sheet were subsequent steps taken by the public respondents. In any event that order docs not bind outsiders, like the present writ petitioner or the Managing Committee of the Golabari School who would be entitled in law to reject without prejudice diploma if it is right in law to do so. 16. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner placed recruitment roles specially Rule 7(b) and Rule 6-xil. It was submitted that recognition of the institution is a must before a diploma can be obtained properly. 17. 16. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner placed recruitment roles specially Rule 7(b) and Rule 6-xil. It was submitted that recognition of the institution is a must before a diploma can be obtained properly. 17. A number of cases were cited, all of the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court has again and again emphasized in no unclear terms the necessity of seeing to it that only affiliated students of recognized institutions are sent up as candidates for taking examination appointment should not be give to persons with unrecognized degrees even if those degrees come from high and reputed placed. In the case of A.P.C.M.E. Society's Case, AIR 1986 SC 1490 , O. Chinappa Reddy, J., said for the Beach that nothing is more subversive of the rule of law then the Court itself, asking some person or authority to break it. 18. If unrecognized institutions send up students and the Court directs the sending up of such students then it is the intention of the Court to direct the breaking of law and therefore, the rule of law. 19. The Supreme Court Cases show disapproval of unaffiliated students and unauthorized appointees in the case of St. Josheph's Case, 1991 (3) SCC 87 ; Vikas Saheb Rao's Case, 1992 (4) SCC 435 ; Dattatraya's Case, 1992 (4) SCC 440 , half page judgment; All India Institute of Medical Science's Case, 1996 (7) SCC 741 , appointee Doctor without recognized degree. 20. The Supreme Court said in the said St. Josheph's case that it is in correct to allow an unrecognized institution to send up students on humanitarian grounds in the Vikas case it said that doing so would be subversive of the rule of law. In the short judgment referred to above, it said that process would bring total indiscipline in the field of regulations. In the Doctor's case, the selection was set aside even though it had made by an expert body. 21. The public respondents might have been compelled by the order passed in the contempt application to allow the examine to sit for the examination even if they came from an unrecognized institution, but anything more than this given to students of unrecognized institutions would be in breath of law and subversive of the rule of law. The granting of marks sheets and the granting of diplomas were not according to law and therefore, not effective. 22. The granting of marks sheets and the granting of diplomas were not according to law and therefore, not effective. 22. I can well understand the Managing Committee of the School as well as the D.I. being in an appropriate awe of an order passed by the High Court. They would most naturally try to give the maximum effect to and order passed by the High Court and this is appropriate and according to safe and convict procedure. It is always better for such parties to err in such a manner that they avoid contempt of Court rather than that they make the error in the other manner. 23. But now that the matter has again been brought before the Court by institution of the present writ, a legal decision has to be given both in the interest of the parties and in the interest of future guidance to the public respondents. 24. The clear legal decision is that students taking examinations from unrecognized institutions whether by mistake or under order of Court or on any other basis cannot be given diplomas and even if diplomas are given, those diplomas are not valid for appointment and other purposes. If the Court specifically directs otherwise it is another matter. 25. If there I had taken this view then the panel could not have been approved. 26. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.16 did not deal with any of the cases regarding the unrecognized institutions etc. indeed the principle is laid down so clearly and so of tea that the proposition is undisputed. This part of the case, therefore, has to be decided in favour of the writ petitioner. 27. The Managing Committee of the school submitted that since the 16th respondent has been working for sometime it would be in the interest of the School, if the appointment is not disturbed at this stage. However, in my opinion it would be improper not to disturb the appointment as that would put a premium upon, unrecognized colleges and students of unrecognized college going on in the same manner in future, assuming that they can disregard the lack of recognition of the Institution and they can file a writ and can let orders thereon. 28. Appearing for the State respondents Mr. Panja submitted that the D.I. has taken the decision to the best of his knowledge and understanding. 28. Appearing for the State respondents Mr. Panja submitted that the D.I. has taken the decision to the best of his knowledge and understanding. But he submitted that man, student get admitted to unrecognized institutions and pay admission and other fees though not all of the know from the very beginning that those institutions are unrecognized and obtaining admission thereto might become fruitless in future. Mr. Panja submitted that the college in question is still unrecognized and it is not the principle of the respondent No.2 i.e. the D.P.I. that institutions unrecognized by him are treated at par as the recognized institutions. The State respondent have therefore, supported both the decisions of the D.I. and the submissions of the writ petitioner that institutions unrecognized by the D.P.I. should not send up students for obtaining diplomas. 29. The writ petitioner also submitted that the without prejudice marks sheet and diplomas cannot effect anybody light and for this two cases were cited, Pratap Rai's Case, AIR 1978 SC 1244 and D.R. Punjab Montogomery Transport Corporation & other Raghuvanshi Private Limited & other, 1982 (2) Cal LJ 74. 30. Mr. Banerjee did not deal with these cases either. However, Mr. Banerjee raised the point that the writ petitioner has been working in the school from 1979. Therefore, the sponsoring of his name by the Employment Exchange made on 24.3.1995 was wrongful. Therefore, the writ petitioner should not get any relief. The writ petitioner answered that along with his application the no-objection letter was given to the Golabari School from the school where he is working now. It was pointed out that retention of the name of an Employment Exchange is possible if an appropriate application is made and allowed in the hope of getting better employment. Since I am more concerned with setting aside the approval of the D.I. and consequentially the appointment of the 16th respondent, I do not feel to call upon to eater upon the issue of the propriety and the locus and of the writ petitioner to obtain the appointment in Golabari School. This is a matter for the future. But the writ petitioner has sufficiently established his locus standi to maintain the writ as he was the 3rd member in the panel itself. 31. It is most unfortunate that a person who has got an appointment has to lose it. This is a matter for the future. But the writ petitioner has sufficiently established his locus standi to maintain the writ as he was the 3rd member in the panel itself. 31. It is most unfortunate that a person who has got an appointment has to lose it. It is also unfortunate that unrecognized institutions are admitting students for their own profit. However, it is important in this situation to bear in mind the important and basic principle stated by O. Chinappa Reddy, J., that the Court should uphold the rule of law and should not allow the law to be broken. If I dismiss the writ petition, I shall allow the law to be broken twice. Once by the P.G.B.T. College carrying on without recognition and again by the D.I. by treating the diplomas obtained by students of unrecognized colleges as valid good and at par with normal diplomas. For the reasons above, I therefore, make the rule absolute in terms of prayers A, B and C of the writ petition. No recovery of any months paid to the respondent No.16 upto today shall be even made. The writ petition is thus disposed of without any order as to costs.