JUDGMENT S.B.Sinha, J. 1. These appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. These appeals involve a question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of these case, the provisions of the School Service Commission Act, 1997, West Bengal Act No.4 of 1997 will have any application or not. Before considering the point of issue the short fact of the matter may be noticed. "2. Some post of Assistant Teachers fell vacant in Bohalberia Md. B.N. Siksha Sadan from time to time. Allegedly on or about 20-9-93 a prior permission was granted to fill up the said vacancy. However, on or about 12-11-97/27-10-98 fresh prior permission had been granted; pursuant whereto the Managing Committee of the School asked the Employment Exchange to sponsor the names of candidate on 8-11-98. In the meantime the School Service Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) came into force on 1-11-97. Rules under the said Act were made by the State of West Bengal on or about 8-11-98. 3. An advertisement was published in the newspapers inviting application for the post of Assistant Teacher on 2-12-98 and the panel was prepared and in one of the posts the son of the Head Master of the said school was selected and was placed at Serial No.1 in the panel. On 12-2-99 the said panel was submitted to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), South 24 Parganas, Alipore. 4. In the meantime the writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners, inter alia, for the following reliefs; "a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their servant agents, associates and each one of them particularly the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to fill up the vacant post of Assistant Teacher in History subject in Bohalberia Md. B.N. Siksha Sadan, P.O. Bohalberia, via Dhola Hal, District South 24 - Parganas through School Service Commission. b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their servants, agents, associates and each one of them restraining the School authorities of Bohalberia Md. B.N. Siksha Sadan , P.O. Bohalberia, via Dhola Hal, District South 24-Parganas not to fill up the vacant post of assistant teacher in History subject in the said school through open Advertisement. b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their servants, agents, associates and each one of them restraining the School authorities of Bohalberia Md. B.N. Siksha Sadan , P.O. Bohalberia, via Dhola Hal, District South 24-Parganas not to fill up the vacant post of assistant teacher in History subject in the said school through open Advertisement. c) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to certify and transmit all the records and documents pertaining to this application so that the conscionable justice may be administered by quashing the same;" 5. By reason of the impugned judgment, the ld. Trial Judge allowed the said writ application, inter alia, on the ground that section 9(2) of the School Service Commission Act, 1997 will have no application as the selection process started long prior to the said Act having come into force. 6. Mr. Ashok Dey, the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, inter alia, submitted that keeping in view the phraseology used in section 9(2) of the said Act, the Trial Judge must be held to have committed an error in law in holding that the provisions thereof have no applications in the facts and circumstances in this case. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Ansar Alam Vs. The State, reported in 1998 L.I.C 2233. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Maloy Kumar Basu, the ld. senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, inter alia, submitted that grant of prior permission on 12-11-97 and 27-10-98 or the advertisement published on 2-12-98 being in continuation of the order granting prior permission dated 20-9-93, the same must be held to be have been done by way of revalidation of the earlier order granting prior permission as would appear from the letter dated 12-11-97 issued by the District Inspector of Schools to the Secretary to the said School which is to the following effect. "On the basis of the court's order passed by the Hon'ble Justice N.K.Mitra in W.P.No. 24445(W) of 1997 on 3.10.97 he is hereby requested to proceed for appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff of the school as to the prior permission already accorded vide this Office Memo No. 2815/ADI Gen. Dated 20.9.93, 2812/AD/Gen. Dated 20.9.93, 2811/AD/Gen dated 20.9.93 and 2810/AD/Gen. "On the basis of the court's order passed by the Hon'ble Justice N.K.Mitra in W.P.No. 24445(W) of 1997 on 3.10.97 he is hereby requested to proceed for appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff of the school as to the prior permission already accorded vide this Office Memo No. 2815/ADI Gen. Dated 20.9.93, 2812/AD/Gen. Dated 20.9.93, 2811/AD/Gen dated 20.9.93 and 2810/AD/Gen. Dated 20.9.93 and 2813/AD/dated 20.9.93." The issue raised in these appeal is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court of which one of us (S.B.Sinha, ACJ.) was a member in Narayan Baidya vs. D.Lor Schools (S.E.J, South 24 Parganas & Ors. being M.A.T. No. 3466 of 1998 disposed of on 14-10-99. In that case the court relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court of India as also this Court. 8. Having considered the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act and• the Rules framed thereunder, the direction issued by the Director of School Education from time to time in exercise of its power under Rule 28 of Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institution (Aided & Un-aided), 1969 (hereinafter referred to Management Rules), it was held: "Rule 28 of the Management Rules stands substituted. A substitution may amount to an amendment but the normal rule of interpretation of substitution is that it will have effect as if the same was existing from the beginning. In the instant case, the selection process had not been completed. Had the selection process been complete, the matter might have been different keeping in view the provision of section 8 of the said Act read with the procedure for selection framed by the Governor. Furthermore, both sections 7 and 9 of the said Act contain non-obstante clauses which are of the wide amplitude. Keeping in view the provisions of the said Act vis-a-vis the direction issued by the Director of School Education, there cannot be any doubt that in case of conflict the former will prevail. Each Act has to be construed keeping in view the purport of the Act. Furthermore, a rule when validly framed may become part of an Act but the same cannot be said to be true with regard to a direction made by a subordinate authority in exercise of its power conferred upon it under a rule. Each Act has to be construed keeping in view the purport of the Act. Furthermore, a rule when validly framed may become part of an Act but the same cannot be said to be true with regard to a direction made by a subordinate authority in exercise of its power conferred upon it under a rule. Such a direction being subject to any direction made by the State has been held to be directory in nature. (See Debasis Dutta vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1998(2) CLJ 1 ." 9. This Court distinguished its earlier decision in Basudeb Bag vs. Bhaskar Chandra Kar & Ors., reported in 1996(1) CLJ 230 and the unreported decisions in Naresh Chandra Mondal & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.(W.P.No.4469(W) of 1998, disposed of on 7-4-1998) and Smt. Kalpana Biswas (Nanda) vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P. No.24509(W) of 1997), disposed of on 18-12-1998), and laid down the laws in the following terms: "Although the School Service Commission Act came into force with effect from 17.10.97, the procedure for selection of schools having been made on 8.1.98, it became effective only with effect from that date. If prior to 8.1.98 the selection process had been completed the matter would have been different. But in the instant case the selection process was not complete by the said date and by an order dated 29.9.97, a learned Single Judge of this court directed holding of another interview. The very fact that another interview was directed to be held clearly goes to show that the selection process was not complete as admittedly no panel had been prepared and, thus, the question of approval thereof by the District Inspector of Schools did not arise. It is true that on 27.11.97 when the order impugned was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the said Act could not have been given effect to as the rules for selection had not been completed but as of to-day no relief as has been prayed for can be granted." 10. It is true that on 27.11.97 when the order impugned was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the said Act could not have been given effect to as the rules for selection had not been completed but as of to-day no relief as has been prayed for can be granted." 10. In view of the fact that in the instant case the right of the candidates for being considered, could have arisen only upon their names being sponsored and/or the issue of advertisement and as prior to the date, the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder, came into force, the question of any selection being made in violation thereof did not arise. The ld. Trial Judge, therefore, was not right in holding that the provisions of the said Act will have no application of the instant case. 11. The ld. Counsel also questions the locus of the appellant to maintain these appeal. As the prayer of the Private Respondent is contrary to law, this court can issue such a declaration even at the instance of a person who has no direct interest in the matter in view if the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Meera Massey vs. Dr. S.R. Mahrotra, reported in 1998(3) SCC 88 . 12. For the reasons aforementioned these appeals are allowed and the writ application filed by the appellants stand allowed and the School Authorities are hereby directed to fill up the existing vacant posts forthwith in terms of the provisions of the said Act and Rules framed thereunder. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. I agree. Appeals are allowed.