S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 22. 4. 99 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellants herein was disposed of with the following direction:"here the case lies that the Secretary did not participate in interview as a result whereof the writ petition fails. There will be no order as to costs. However, the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Midnapore will consider the panel in accordance with law and will give a decision in this respect within four weeks from the date of communication of this order, if necessary, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties including the petitioners and by passing a reasoned order thereof. " ( 2 ) THE State of West Bengal enacted West Bengal Secondary Education Act, 1963. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the Power conferred upon it in terms of section 45 of the said Act, the State also framed under the Act the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969. Clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 28 and Clause (1) of sub-rule (4) of the said Rules reads thus: (I)to appoint in accordance with the directions given by the Director in this behalf, teachers and other employees on permanent basis against permanent vacancies, if available, within the sanctioned strength of teachers and other employees, approval for such appointment being thereafter sought for from the Director or any officer authorized by him ordinarily within a fortnight from the date of decision of the Committee; (II)to appoint in accordance with the directions given by the Director in this behalf, teachers and other employees, on temporary basis against permanent or temporary vacancies, if available, within the sanctioned strength of teachers and other employees approval for such appointment being thereafter sought for from the Director or any other officer authorized by him ordinarily within a week from the date of decision of the Committee; clause (i) of sub-rule (4 ). To appoint in accordance with the directions given by the Director or in his behalf teachers and other employees on permanent or temporary basis, approval of such appointment being thereafter sought for from the Board through the Director ordinarily within a fortnight from the date of decision of the Committee;" ( 3 ) THE Director of School Education in exercise of his power conferred upon him under clause (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 20 of the Management Rules and clause (1) of sub-rule (4) thereof framed rules commonly known as "recruitment Rules, 1969. " The said Recruitment Rules in view of several decisions of this Court are binding on all the statutory authorities including the Managing Committee of the School. Prior permission was granted for filling up the Group-D post by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) in terms of the said Recruitment Rules. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to or in furtherance of such prior permission the Managing Committee of the School called for the names of the eligible candidates from the local Employment Exchange and 20 names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The name of the private respondent, namely, Goutam Singha, was not sponsored. He admittedly is the son of the Secretary, Sri Ganapati Singha, of the School. Allegedly he filed a writ application in this Court and obtained an order to the effect that he may also be interviewed along with other eligible candidates. For the aforementioned purpose, the date of interview was deferred by the Secretary of the School which was originally fixed on 20. 1. 99 even without obtaining the prior sanction of the D. I. of Schools (SE), that is, required under rule 6 (P) of the Recruitment Rules. ( 5 ) THE Secretary of the School also selected the Expert and the members of the Selection Committee. Allegedly, they were the men of the Secretary of the School. A panel was prepared wherein the name of the respondent No. 7 was at serial No. 1. It appears from the minute of the meeting dated 23. 2. 99 that when the recommendation of the Selection Committee was placed before the Managing Committee which in terms of the said Recruitment Rules was to approve such panel, objection was raised by the respondent nos. 8 to 11, inter alia, alleging that the Secretary had been favouring his son. It appears from the minute of the meeting dated 23. 2. 99 that when the recommendation of the Selection Committee was placed before the Managing Committee which in terms of the said Recruitment Rules was to approve such panel, objection was raised by the respondent nos. 8 to 11, inter alia, alleging that the Secretary had been favouring his son. There had been a clear division in the opinion of the members of the Managing Committee. Despite the fact that his son was one of the candidates and the approval of the panel by the Managing Committee was a part of the selection process, the Secretary took part therein and inter alia voted in favour of sending the panel to the District Inspector of Schools (SE ). In the premises aforementioned, a writ application was filed, inter alia, on the ground (1) that the name of the respondent no. 7 was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, (2) He was favoured by the concerned persons as he was the son of the Secretary. (3) The date of interview was altered without approval of the D. I. of Schools. (4) The Secretary of the School selected an expert and issued the interview letters to the candidates. ( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge considered only one aspect of the matter, namely, as to whether keeping in view the fact that the secretary himself was a member of the Selection Committee and found in terms of the decision of this court in the case of Ashok Kumar Jana v. District Inspector of Schools and Ors. reported in 1995 (2) CHN-1 and Ashoke Kr. Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 454 and came to the conclusion that the selection process is not vitiated. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the direction made by this court the District Inspector of Schools (SE) allegedly passed a speaking order, in terms whereof the panel was approved and the respondent No. 7 has been appointed. Such subsequent fact has been brought to the court's notice by the appellant herein. ( 7 ) THERE cannot be any doubt whatsoever that only because a candidate happens to be a relative of a member of the Managing Committee or other office-bearer he is precluded from consideration of being appointed. Such subsequent fact has been brought to the court's notice by the appellant herein. ( 7 ) THERE cannot be any doubt whatsoever that only because a candidate happens to be a relative of a member of the Managing Committee or other office-bearer he is precluded from consideration of being appointed. A person may not be a member of the Selection Committee, if he relates to one of the candidate in terms of rule 5 (2) of the Recruitment Rules. ( 8 ) THE question which arises for consideration is as to whether only because rule 5 (2) of the aforementioned Rules was complied with, the selection process of the respondent no. 7 was valid. Answer to the aforementioned question must be rendered in negative. ( 9 ) THE fact of the matter, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly depicts as to how some authorities of the School keeping in view the gross un-employment achieved the object of making back-door appointment of their relation. This case clearly shows that the Secretary of the School has achieved the said purpose. ( 10 ) THE Recruitment Rules framed by the Director of School Education having force, the law are required to be observed not only by the statutory authority but also by the Managing Committee of the school. It has been so held by this court in several decisions but suffice it would be referred to a Special Bench decision in the case of Debasis Dutta v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 1998 (2) CLJ 1 as also a Division Bench decision in the case of Ziaul Islam v. State of West Bengal reported in 1999 (1) CLT 509. ( 11 ) THE decision of Debasis Dutta's case has been considered in details by another Division Bench of this court in similar situation in the case of Muktipada Maity v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 1999 (1) Cal LT 158 (HC) wherein it has been held:"3. However the matter came up for consideration before a Special Bench of this Court reported in (1998) Cal HN 455 wherein it has been held that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A. P. v. K. N. Visweshwar Rao and Ors. reported in (1996)3 SCC 216 on the basis whereof the said order dated 17. 7. reported in (1996)3 SCC 216 on the basis whereof the said order dated 17. 7. 97 was passed by the learned Trial Judge does not lay down on inflexible rule and in any event is not applicable in a case where recruitment is governed by a statutory rules, the Special Bench held: (1)the Recruitment Rules although contained directory provisions, the same are required to be substantially complied with. (2)any deviation and departure from the directions by the Director of School Education by reason of the said Recruitment Rules can only be made by the Director of School Education himself or by the State Government by issuing an order or a direction or guideline depending upon the facts and circumstances. (3)the Managing Committee of the respondent school is bound to follow the provisions of the Recruitment Rules and the petitioner having not raised the question of constitutionality of the said rules in the writ application cannot be permitted to do so by way of argument. (4)no direction can be issued by this court upon the Managing Committee of the school to allow any and every person to appear in the interviews although his name has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The orders issued in this behalf by some of the procedure do not lay down the correct law and must be overruled. (5)the Managing Committee cannot act in contravention of the said provision unless the same is unconstitutional. This Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot also issue a direction asking it to violate the provision of Statute". 4. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be said to have appeared at the interview, on his own right inasmuch as, the aforementioned order dated 17. 7. 97 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, although had not been questioned by any other person, will be deemed to have overruled. Furthermore, the Apex Court as also this court in various other decisions clearly held that any appointment made in violation of the Recruitment Rules shall be void and nullity. 7. 97 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, although had not been questioned by any other person, will be deemed to have overruled. Furthermore, the Apex Court as also this court in various other decisions clearly held that any appointment made in violation of the Recruitment Rules shall be void and nullity. Recruitment must be made strictly in terms of the procedure laid down in the Recruitment Rules, framed by the Director of School Education in exercise of its power conferred upon it in clause (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (1) and clause (1) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969": ( 12 ) MR. Asok De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7 however submits that an application for Special Leave to Appeal has been filed against one of the orders of this court which was marked as Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 13831/1999 wherein maintenance of status-quo as on that day was passed. It is now well settled that even in a similar matter an interim order is passed, the ratio of co-ordinate Bench or higher Bench does not wiped off. Such decision of the co-ordinate Bench or higher Bench continues to remain binding as precedent. ( 13 ) MR. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants however submits that this Court keeping in view the peculiar fact of the matter should not interfere with the impugned order at this stage and in support of the said contention reliance has seen placed on 1998 (8) SCC 59 (Roshni Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. ). In that case the Apex Court has strongly depreciated the practice of selecting and preparing an unusually large list compared to the vacancy position. However keeping in view the fact that a similar direction issued earlier in Suresh Kumari case (unreported) had not been questioned but despite the same considered the illegality and irregularity perpetrated by the said judgment and further in view of the enormity of the impact which the judgment would have on the future generation of the candidates aspiring for a job in the post of clerk, the direction given by the Full Bench under appeal was modified by issuing fresh direction. One of the direction was that the appointment made out of the list would not be annulled. The appointee therein had worked for more than 9 years. Furthermore the Apex Court could issue such direction in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Article 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to do complete justice to the parties. Such power this court does not possess. Moreover illegality pointed out before us is absolutely clear. No court of law either in principle or in equity can support the same. 11. There is another aspect of the matter. In terms of the Recruitment Rules framed by the Director of School Education, the selection process does not end with approval of the panel in terms of the Recruitment Rules framed by the Director of School Education but it covers a field beginning from the issuance of prior permission by the District Inspector or School upto grant of approval of appointment. In terms of the Recruitment Rules the D. I. of School is not only required to grant approval of the panel but is also enjoined with duty to grant approval of appointment. Such approval has not yet been oranted. Thus, the appointment made by the Managing Committee of the School may not be approved. 12. The allegations in the writ application which have been repeated before us, an supported by documents but the same have not been controverted. 13. It is now a well-settled principle of law that for the purpose of obtaining an appropriate relief from the court in exercise of power of judicial review it is not necessary for the petitioner is prove actual bias or real bias. Likelihood of bias is sufficient for the purpose of setting aside an order. ( 14 ) FOR the reason aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the selection process so far as the same relates to respondent no. 7 is concerned, is vitiated in law and thus, the same cannot be approved by us. ( 15 ) FOR the reason aforementioned, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently the order of the District Inspector of Schools (SE) oranting approval of the panel and the appointment of the respondent no. 7 are set aside. ( 15 ) FOR the reason aforementioned, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently the order of the District Inspector of Schools (SE) oranting approval of the panel and the appointment of the respondent no. 7 are set aside. ( 16 ) THE matter now again be placed before the Managing Committee of the School for consideration for the purpose of approval of panel excluding that of the respondent no. 7 in accordance with law. The appeal is, thus, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The prayer for stay of operation of this order is considered and refused. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on priority basis. M. H. S. Ansari, J.-I agree. Appeal allowed.