S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals having been directed against judgment and order dated 11-3-1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 22037 (W) of 1997 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE writ petition Kalika Singh filed the aforementioned writ application allegedly on the ground that although he was at serial No. 1 of the Panel, no step had been taken by the District Inspector of Schools to approve the said panel. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge, upon hearing the counsel for the parties disposed of the writ application by quashing the Memo. bearing No. 1826-GA dated 5/8th December, 1997, as contained in Annexure F to the supple- mentary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 17-10-97 and further directing the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the panel submitted before him on 30th September, 1997 within 30days from the date of communication of the order of the learned trial Judge. The said Memo. bearing No. 1826-GA reads thus:"in terms of Bengal Scheduled Castes and Tribes Federation Ref. No. EM-PS-1/97 dated. 3. 12. 97 it appears that the panel seeking instruction which has been sent to this office has not yet been replied. This is for his information that at present with the introduction of School Service Commission Act there is no scope for any District Inspector of Schools (SE) to approve any panel neither is there any scope on the part of the school authority to issue any appointment letter. In the circumstances, he is instructed to request the shcool authority to requisition the post with the concerned Service Commission when called for. " ( 4 ) AN appeal was preferred by Sri Faderi Ram representing himself as Secretary to the Hooghly Chinsurah Local Committee, an unit of Bengal Scheduled Caste/tribe Federation questioning the said order, inter alia, on the ground that in view of the Supreme Court decisions the post of Headmaster also comes within the purview of reservation. ( 5 ) ANOTHER appeal was preferred by one of the candidates namely, Shri Mohan Chowdhury, who is also a member of scheduled caste on the self-same ground. Two additional grounds have also been taken by the said appellant. ( 6 ) MR. Lahiri and Miss. ( 5 ) ANOTHER appeal was preferred by one of the candidates namely, Shri Mohan Chowdhury, who is also a member of scheduled caste on the self-same ground. Two additional grounds have also been taken by the said appellant. ( 6 ) MR. Lahiri and Miss. Patheria, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the apex court in Union of India v Madhav reported in 1997 (2) SCC 332 and another decision had held that its earlier decision in Chakradhar Paswan v. State reported in Judgment Today 1998 (1)SC page 4962 was not a good law. ( 7 ) THE question as to whether Chakradhar Paswan case (supra) was a good law or not came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of the apex court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and Others reported in Judgment Today 1998 (3) SC 223. In the aforementioned decision, the decision of Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra v. J. B. Agarwalla reported in Judgment Today 1997 (5) SC 72 and Union of India v. Madhav reported in 1997 (2) SCC 332 and Union of India and Ors. v Brij Lal Thakur reported in Judgment Today 1997 (4)SC 195 were held to be not the good law. In that decision it was held-"mr. KAPIL Sibal has contended that in some higher echelon of service in educational and technical institution where special expertiese is necessary to hold superior posts, like Professors and Readers there should not be reservation even if there are plurality of posts in such cadre as indicated in the majority view in Indra Sawhney's case. It is, however, not necessary for us to decide the said contention for the purpose of disposal of these matters, where the question of reservation in single cadre post calls for decision. ""we, therefore, approve the view taken in Chakradhar's case that there can not be any reservation in a single post cadre and we do not approve the reasonings in Madhav's case, Brij Lal Thakur's case upholding reservation in a single post cadre either directly or by device of rotation of roster point. Accordingly, the impugned decision in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education Reserach can not also be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned decision in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education Reserach can not also be sustained. The Review Petition made in Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education Research, Chandigarh, is therefore, allowed and the judgment dated May 2, 1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 is set aside. ""as we do not propose to consider the facts and circumstances in other cases which have been heard along with the Review Petition, we direct that the said matters be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal on the basis of this decision in Review Petition in C. A. No. 3175 of 1997. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the appellant Faderi Ram and Mohan Chowdhury cannot have any case and cannot be said to have any substance in their contentions. Miss. Patheria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Mohan Chowdhury, however, has further drawn our notice to the chart prepared by the Selection Commitee on 30th April, 1997 and submitted on the basis thereof that no mark has been allotted in favour of his client in respect of the Degree in M. A. The learned counsel, in this connection has placed before us a mark-sheet issued in favour of the said appellant by the Kanpur University. ( 9 ) IT was further submitted that though both the writ petitioner Kalika Singh and appellant Mohan Chowdhury were teachers in the said school but the writ petitioner Kalika Singh being teacher-in-charge had been favoured. ( 10 ) IN support of the aforementioned contention our attention has been drawn to a Circular letter dated 2nd September, 1982 wherein it was stated-THE Pay Commission has, inter alia recommended that 10 years teaching experience in a recognised Secondary School Schools shall be required for appointment to the post of Headmaster/headmistress in a Secondary School in lieu of 5 years teaching experience as laid down in the existing orders. The minimum academic and professional qualifications shall, however, remain unchanged. The Government have also accepted the recommendation of the Pay Commission in this regard. The minimum academic and professional qualifications shall, however, remain unchanged. The Government have also accepted the recommendation of the Pay Commission in this regard. In the circumstances stated above it is requested that necessary instructions should be given to all concerned to the effect that henceforth no candidate have less than 10 years teaching experience in a recognised Secondary School/schools or in a recognised Madrasha/madrashas of Secondary type shall be appointed to the post of Headmaster/headmistress in Higher Secondary Schools/higher Madrashah and High Schools/high Madrasha. The academic and professional qualifications, as laid down in the existing orders shall, however, remain unchanged. Trained candidates with Masters degrees who have secured not less than 40% of marks at M. Com. combinations with ten years' teaching experience shall also be eligible for appointment to the posts of Headmaster/headmasters. " ( 11 ) HOWEVER, it appears that the State of West Bengal in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 framed Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 (herinafter referred to as the "management Rules" ). ( 12 ) IN terms of clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 28 and clause (i) of sub-rule (4), the Director of School Education issued a direction for compliance by the recognised and non-Government secondary institutions in connection with recruitment of heads of the Institutions, teachers and non-teaching employees. The said order was to take effect from 1-12-1995 cancelling all other previous orders of the Director of School Education in respect of procedure for recruitment of heads of the Institutions and teaching and non-teaching staff in non-Government Secondary Institutions. In view of the aforementioned Rules circular letters now cannot be given effect to. Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules of 1995 lay down a procedure as to how the marks are to be allotted to each of the candidate in respect of their academic qualification. It is not disputed that in terms of the said Rules 20 marks are to be allotted to those candidates who have obtained 1st class in Post Graduate degree and 15 in second class of the Pst Graduate degree. No provision has been made for allotment of any mark to such candidate who had obtained post graduate degree with third class. The mark-sheet produced before us by Miss. No provision has been made for allotment of any mark to such candidate who had obtained post graduate degree with third class. The mark-sheet produced before us by Miss. Patheria clearly shows that the said appellant Mohan Chowdhury has obtained third division in the graduate degree. Even in the Chart the said fact had not been mentioned. It is under this circumstances, we do not find any substance in the contention of Miss. Patheria so far as the question of apprehension of the appellant to the effect that all the members of the Selection Committee were biased against the petitioner is concerned, in our opinion, the same appears to be general and vague in nature and no reliance can be placed thereupon. Had the appellant been really aggrieved by reason of any bias shown in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent, he would have been expected to bring the same to the notice of the District Inspector of Schools. He did not do so. He even did not file any writ petiton. As indicated hereinbefore, he even did not file the appeal in the first instance. Miss. Patheria was candid enough to admit that her client was under the impression that the interest of the said appellant shall be protected by the aforementioned association]. As indicated hereinbefore, the appeal preferred by Shri Faderi Ram representing the association, raises a legal question. Only after the decision of the Constitution Bench of the apex court in 1998 (3) Judgment Today 223 (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Institution and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and Ors), the aforementioned appeal was filed. The aforementioned circumstance also clearly shows that the allegation of bias has been made by way of an after-thought. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals, which are, accordingly, dismissed. ( 14 ) IN the facts and circumstances of these cases, there will, however, be no order as to costs. All interim orders, if there be any, are vacated. If urgent xerox certified copy is applied for, the office is directed to expedite the same. D. B. Dutta, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed