S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) -THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 20. 8. 98 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in W. P. No. 18372 (W) of 1997. ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. A post of Assistant Teacher in Karanji Senior Madrasah fell vacant and in respect whereof, prior permission had been granted by the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.) to fill up the said post. As the name of the writ petitioner/respondent was not sponsored, he filed a writ application before this court which was registered as W. P. No. 5656 (W) of 1997. S. R. Misra, J by order dated 4. 4. 97 disposed of the said writ application permitting the petitioner to appear at the interview subject to the verification as to whether the names of the candidates who are juniors to the petitioner had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange or not. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner had appeared at the interview. The petitioner was empanelled. As the said panel was not approved, the petitioner filed a writ application. In that writ application, the petitioner, inter alia, has contended :"the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been succeeded in the interview and secured first position in the panel thus considering the equity the petitioner's selection should not be quashed on the ground that the name of the petitioner has not been sponsored by the employment exchange. The petitioner states that the panel forwarded by the school authority for approval of the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), Dakshin Dinajpur should be approved and the same cannot be cancelled on any ground whatsoever". ( 3 ) IT was the further case of the petitioner that he registered his name in the Employment Exchange at Raigunj on 9. 9. 1987. The admitted fact is that the petitioner passed the Alim Examination in the year 1985, Fazil Examination in 1987 and M. M. Examination in the year 1989. Despite the fact that he passed the M. M. Examination in the year 1989, he did not get the said qualification registered with the Employment Exchange immediately but only on 16. 1. 97 the said qualification was recorded with the Employment Exchange. Before the learned trial Judge, the Employment Exchange Manual had not been produced. Despite the fact that he passed the M. M. Examination in the year 1989, he did not get the said qualification registered with the Employment Exchange immediately but only on 16. 1. 97 the said qualification was recorded with the Employment Exchange. Before the learned trial Judge, the Employment Exchange Manual had not been produced. In the aforementioned sitution, the learned Judge observed:"what requires to be considered by the employment exchange was whether as per registration the petitioner was junior to the candidates who had been sponsored. This could have been ascertained in two ways : (1)by the dates on which the respective candidates registered their names with employment exchange, (2)by comparing the dates on which the respective candidates obtained their requisite qualification i. e. M. M. Qualification". ( 4 ) AS no rule had been placed, the writ application was disposed of directing :"it is seen from the list forwarded by the employment exchange that some people who were registered in 1991-92 have been sponsored by the employment exchange. Some of whom have recorded their names in 1995 as M. M. pass candidates. In the circumstances, the above writ petition is being disposed of with a direction upon the district Inspector of School to verify as to the date on which the petitioner has obtained M. M. qualification and if the same has been obtained by the petitioner prior to the date of the candidates whose names had been sponsored by the employment exchange, then the petitioner shall be considered eligible for the participation in the selection process and at the interview already held on 17. 7. 97 for the post of Assistant Teacher in Theology. It is brought to my notice by Mr. Golam Mustafa, learned advocate for private respondent that pursuant to the order of His Lordship N. K. Mitra, J. on 28. 1. 98 in W. P. No 16762 (W) of 1997 hearing is to be made and orders have to be passed by the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner's case is also in the light of the above observation shall be considered and disposed of by a common order" ( 5 ) PURSUANT to the said order, panel has been approved and the writ petitioner/respondent has been appointed. The petitioner's case is also in the light of the above observation shall be considered and disposed of by a common order" ( 5 ) PURSUANT to the said order, panel has been approved and the writ petitioner/respondent has been appointed. ( 6 ) THE only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the petitioner having got his name registered with the employment exchange in the year 1987 and having his M. M. Qualification got recorded on 16. 1. 97, he was to be considered as senior to the candidates who got their names registered later on. ( 7 ) THE relevant provision of the Employment Exchange Manual is as follows :"9. 18 (C ). In cases where an applicant registered for general vacancies subsequently acquires higher academic qualification, the entry under the item recommended occupation will continue to be general vacancies but the N. C. O. Code No. will change according to the qualification acquired. While the applicant will retain the original seniority of registration for the N. C. O. Code No. for which he was originally registered, for the new N. C. O. Code No. seniority will count only from the date the change is made". ( 8 ) A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision clearly goes to show that in respect of the new N. C. O. Code No. , seniority will be counted only from the date the change is made. The Jt. Director of Employment in his letter dated 17. 6. 97 addressed to the Employment Officer-in-Charge stated:"with reference to his letter No. E/pvt/14/97/11668 dt. 29. 4. 97 he is advised to inform the Secretary, Karanji High Madrasah, P. O. Karanji, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur that the petitioner, Md. Majedur Rahaman in the captioned matter is junior to the sponsored candidates who recorded their M. M. Pass Certificate in Employment Exchange by 30. 5. 95. The petitioner noted his M. M. Pass Certificate on 16. 1. 97. Md. Majedur Rahaman did not come within the purview of selection and the question of sponsoring his name to concerned Madrasah does not arise at all. The fact may also be submitted to the court for consideration. A compliance report may be sent to this Directorate as early as possible. 1. 97. Md. Majedur Rahaman did not come within the purview of selection and the question of sponsoring his name to concerned Madrasah does not arise at all. The fact may also be submitted to the court for consideration. A compliance report may be sent to this Directorate as early as possible. " ( 9 ) THUS, even according to the authority of the Employment Exchange the writ petitioner/respondent was junior and thus there has been no violation of the provisions of the Employment Exchange Manual. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel states that the said provision is ultra vires. ( 11 ) IT is not necessary for us to decide the question. As indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the interview on the supposition that the names of his junior were sponsored. Thus, S. R. Misra, J. while disposing of the writ application only considered the contention of the petitioner to the effect that he had been discriminated against. ( 12 ) IF the petitioner did not come within the purview of zone of consideration, the question of sponsoring of his name did not arise. ( 13 ) IN this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner/respondent had wrongly been empanelled. In view of our findings aforementioned, the decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.) pursuant to the impugned judgment must be set aside. ( 14 ) WE may place on record that according to the learned counsel even such order has not been complied with as the respondent has not been given an opportunity of hearing but in view of our finding aforementioned, it is not necessary for us to go into the merit of the said question. In the event, the writ petitioner intends to question the vires of the said question, he may do so inaccordance with law. For the reason aforementioned, this appeal is allowed. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on priority basis. S. N. Bhattacharjee, J.-I agree. Appeal allowed.