JUDGMENT : - Amitava Lala, J.: This writ petition relates to cancellation of the impugned order being Memo No. 53(1)(5) LC dated 4th June, 1990 passed by Director of School Education. 2. The impugned order was passed pursuant to an order passed of by this Court dated 6th December, 1998 while disposing a writ petition being W.P. No. 15169 (W) of 1998 (Basanti Mondal vs. State of W. B. 3. Smt. Basanti Mondal (Halder) respondent No. 7 herein stood first in the panel while the petitioner herein stood second in the panel for approval by the concerned District Inspector of Schools in respect of their service. In the earlier writ petition this Court made an observation in respect of interference of the Court as to the process of the Selection Committee on the basis of the reported decisions being in 1994 (1) SCC 169 (The Chancellor and Anr. vs. Dr. Bijayananda Kar and Ors.) and (2) 1995 (2) CHN 1 (Ashoke Kumar Jana vs. District Inspector of Schools and Ors.). 4. In any event, this Court found in the earlier occasion that the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Nadia, dated 24th July, 1998 passed an order on the basis of the earlier order passed by a Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court dated 20th April, 1998 in W.P. No. 1254 (W) of 1998 (Smt. Mamata Mondal vs. State of W.B. and Ors.) holding that the Selection Committee had not acted impartially but they were divided with partial views in mind which have been reflected on the score sheets furnished by them, specially on ‘'written test". Hence a direction was given upon the Managing Committee of the School to arrange for a fresh interview with a fresh Selection Committee on which an external expert should be selected from the panel formed by the Managing Committee in the meeting convened for the purpose. 5. On 16th December, 1998 while deposing earlier writ petition I observed that either the concerned District Inspector of Schools can approve the panel or can forward the matter to the Director of Public Instructions with his comments and cause of non-approval. It appears not only the panel was disapproved by him but also a direction was given to form a fresh Selection Committee by the school with a further direction to take an interview etc. It appears not only the panel was disapproved by him but also a direction was given to form a fresh Selection Committee by the school with a further direction to take an interview etc. Such power, according to me, a District Inspector of Schools does not possess. Upon final consideration of this Issue, I have directed the Director of School Education to consider the case of the parties in light of judgment delivered herein within the period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order. 6. Therefore, the scope and ambit of the order earlier passed by this Court is in respect of procedural defect on the part of the District Inspector of Schools but not to a question of interference with the process of the Selection Committee. 7. The judgment as cited in earlier before this Court and recorded in the judgment and order passed by this Court on 16th December, 1998 are in respect of interference of the Court into the domain of the Selection Committee but not at all related in respect of process of Selection to be considered by the appropriate authority in giving approval or disapproval having power, in respect of such decision of the Selection Committee. Therefore, ratio of such cases are not applicable herein. 8. Now the question is in respect of consideration of a case by the Director of School Education on the basis of judgment and order aforesaid passed by this Court on dated 16th December- 1998, in W.P. No. 15169 (W) of 1998 (Basanti Mondal vs. State of W.B. and Ors.). I have perused the impugned order and come to know that the Director of School Education ultimately held that he did not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee as the panel of three candidates was prepared by them in order of priority of marks obtained by the candidates secretly following the Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the - panel deserves approval. 9. Now the question is can the inference of the Director of School Education be interfered with? Normally the Writ Court cannot interfere to that extent unless illegality or material irregularity comes forward. Therefore, the - panel deserves approval. 9. Now the question is can the inference of the Director of School Education be interfered with? Normally the Writ Court cannot interfere to that extent unless illegality or material irregularity comes forward. It appears that on the date of selection out of five members of the Selection Committee three members raised objection as to the preparation of panel intimating the Director of School Education directly on the date of selection as available from the record being Annexure 'B' to the petition. Inspite of such objection members' of the Selection Committee were neither called for explanation about their objection nor such aspect was taken into account in the observation itself. On the other hand, it appears from the impugned order of the Director of School Education that members of the Selection Committee unanimously approved the panel which is a palpable wrong stand in coming to conclusion. 10. Ms. Dabjani Sengupta, Id. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon paragraph 8 of a decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 796 (Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbug Singh and Ors.) and contended that when select list found to be prepared in unfair and injudicious manner, in the interview marks reported to have been awarded by the members of the Selection Board for the performance of candidates at their interview were either inflated to push up the candidates who had got poor marks for their educational qualifications or deflated to pull down the candidates who had got high marks for their educational qualifications without adopting a common intelligible criteria for all candidates, the panel has to be cancelled irrespective of the fact as to whether there is direct evidence of corruption is available or not. 11. Mr. D. Banerjee, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the first impaneled candidate made his objections broadly taking three points : (a) Members of the Selection Committee become functus officio after the selection, therefore, there is no scope of considering their views at this stage; (b) Review of the order passed by the Director of School Education cannot be inherent so that it can be granted by this court when it is become final; (c) This writ petition is hit by principles of constructive res judicata or in other words, if it is not, will be never ending process of selection; 12. In support of his contention, he cited two judgments one is reported in (95) 1994(1) SLR 17 (The Chancellor and Ors. vs. Dr. Bijayananda Kar and Ors.) and AIR 70 SC 1273 (Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. vs. Pradyuman Singhji Arjun Singhji). 13. However, as I have already discussed the question relates herein and I hold that the case is not interference with the selection process of the Selection Committee by the Court but approval or disapproval by the Director of Public Instructions based on a wrong observation that the Selection Committee as taken an unanimous decision which is contrary to the record itself. 14. Therefore, illegality or material irregularity is substantiated. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustainable and is hereby set aside. The authority concerned is directed to re-consider the same upon taking into account positively the objection put by the majority members of the Selection Committee as well as giving fullest opportunity of hearing to the all concerned either statutory or private who are giving objection or no objection in approving the panel and record all the concerned statements in unequivocal terms and upon giving reasoned order thereafter come to an ultimate conclusion including the subsequent step or steps positively within .a period of four weeks from date. 15. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of without any order of costs. Since no affidavit has been used by the respondent no allegation is admitted by them. 16. Urgent xerox certificate copy will be supplied to the parties within one week from the date of putting requisition. Writ petition disposed of without any costs.