JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 17.4.98 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the respondent No. 7 was disposed directing, "Since the panel sent by the school authorities to the District Inspector of Schools concerned on 30.9.97 is still lying undisposed of by the District Inspector of Schools concerned for reasons but known to him, though under the relevant Rules he is to dispose of the penal within thirty days from the date of receipt of such panel, it should be deemed that the panel was duly prepared by the school authorities and there is no legal impediment to approve the said panel. Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools concerned is directed to accord approval of the said panel, positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order". 2. Mr. Ali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has, inter alia, drawn this Court's attention to the statements made in Paragraph 7 of the stay application which is to the following effect :- “That on 29.9.1997 or 30.2.1997 panel was submitted to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad by altering the previous panel where the name of the petitioner was 3rd position and also the external expert has put the signature the previous panel. It was revealed the name of the external expert was excluded from the selection committee and the Headmaster of Nabagram, Yakub Mondal High School, Post Office Nabagram, Murshidabad was signed in the panel showing that the external expert Munsur Ali was absent on that date. The panel was prepared by violation of the recruitment rules and also panel was submitted to the Officer of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E), Murshidabad, after one month which is also beyond the recruitment rules.” 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submitted that the writ petitioner’s appointment has already been approved and she had joined the school. However, it has been stated at the Bar that the approval granted by the District Inspector of School is a conditional one. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. However, it has been stated at the Bar that the approval granted by the District Inspector of School is a conditional one. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is true that in terms of recruitment rules framed by the Director of School Education in exercise of his power conferred under Clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) and by Clause (i) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969, the District Inspector of Schools is expected to pass an order relating to approval of panel sent to him by the Managing Committee within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt thereof. But the learned Trial Judge in our considered opinion, proceeded wholly on a wrong premise that the same is mandatory in nature. It is well settled principle of law that where a statutory functionary, is asked to perform a statutory duty within the time prescribed therefore, the same would be directory in nature and not mandatory. Reference in this connection may be made to a Full Bench decision of Patna High Court in (1) Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha v. The District Magistrate of Monghyr and Anr. reported in AIR 1966 Patna 144. In view of the settled principle of law, there cannot be any doubt that the learned trial Judge could not have proceeded on the presumption that only because time prescribed for passing an order relating to approval of panel has lapsed the said panel stood automatically approved. For the self-same reason no direction could have been issued by the learned trial Judge directing grant of approval of the said panel without allowing the statutory functionary to apply his mind as regards validity or legality thereof and pass an appropriate order in exercise of its statutory power, In (2) State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Nuruddin Mallick and Ors. reported in 1998 (8) SCC 143 , the Apex Court held :- "The Courts can either direct the statutory authorities where it is not exercising its direction, by mandamus to exercise its discretion, or when exercised, to see whether it has been validly exercised. It would be inappropriate for the Court to substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide the matter;" 5. It would be inappropriate for the Court to substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide the matter;" 5. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement, we are of the view that the District Inspector of Schools should be allowed to perform his statutory duties at the first instance. For the reasons aforementioned the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. If any panel has been approved by the District Inspector of Schools concerned pursuant to the said order dated 17.4.98, we quash the said order also. Consequently, appointment of the respondent No. 7 shall also stand quashed. However, keeping in view the fact that the writ petitioner has already joined she may be allowed to continue only on ad hoc basis in the interest of the students of the institution till an appropriate order is passed pursuant to this order. The District Inspector of Schools concerned is hereby directed to apply his mind as regards validity or otherwise of the panel strictly in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order upon considering the materials-on-record at an early date and not later than two weeks from the date of communication of this order. It will be open to the said District Inspector of Schools to give an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned. This appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.