Judgment Altamas Kabir, J. This appeal has been filed along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal (CAN No. 768 of 2000) and an application for leave to appeal (CAN No. 1054 of 2000) since the appellant had not been made a party in the writ application which was disposed of on 7th April, 1998, by the order under appeal. 2. Since the delay in filing the appeal is about two years we decided to hear the learned advocates on the merits of the appeal first before taking up the application for leave to appeal and for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant it was sought to be urged that since according to the procedure prescribed for recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff of secondary schools as contained in the recruitment procedure issued by the Director of School Education, Government of West Bengal, vide Memo No. 2816(17) G.A., dated 4th December, 1989, it was only those candidates whose names were soponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange who could be considered for filling up the vacancy for which prior permission had been given by the District Inspector of Schools. It was submitted that since the name of the writ petitioner had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he could not be considered for appointment in the vacant post and the learned Single Judge erred in directing that in future if the school wanted to fill up any vacancy in the class IV group it should also consider the writ petitioner's case for the said post. 4. It was submitted that since the petitioner had stood second in the selection process and his right to be appointed was adversely affected by the order of the learned Single Judge on the basis whereof the writ petitioner had been allowed to appear in the selection process and had been placed in the first position in the panel prepared for the purpose of filling up the vacancy in question, leave should be granted to the appellant petitioner to prefer this appeal after condoning the delay in filing the same. 5. 5. On behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 it was pointed that the writ petitioner had made an application to the school authorities for filling up the vacant post pursuant to an advertisement published in the "Dainik Basumati" on 5th June, 1992 by the authorities of the Telinipara High School. It was submitted that no steps had been taken on the basis of the said advertisement to fill up the vacancy and subsequently fresh names were called for from the Employment Exchange for filling up the post in question ignoring the earlier advertisement. 6. It was urged that in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge directed the school authorities to allow the writ petitioner to appear for interview for filling up any future vacancy in a class IV post in the school, without the writ petitioner having to apply afresh for the said post. It was submitted that since the appellant was not prejudiced in any manner by the direction given by the learned Single Judge and he did not raise any objection when the selection process was undertaken, his prayer for leave to prefer the appeal was liable to be rejected. It was submitted that only after the writ petitioner had been placed in the first position in the panel that the appellant decided to prefer the appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the State did not seriously contest the order of the learned Single Judge since a direction had only been given to consider the case of the petitioner for being considered by the Selection Committee and the name was not inconsistent with the views expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Admittedly, the school had published an advertisement inviting applications for filling up a vacancy in the class IV group and the petitioner had applied in response thereto but no further steps were taken by the school authorities pursuant to such advertisement, and, on the other hand, in 1998 fresh names were called for from the Employment Exchange. 9. Admittedly, the school had published an advertisement inviting applications for filling up a vacancy in the class IV group and the petitioner had applied in response thereto but no further steps were taken by the school authorities pursuant to such advertisement, and, on the other hand, in 1998 fresh names were called for from the Employment Exchange. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge had directed the school authorities to consider the petitioner's case, along with other eligible candidates, for filling up any future vacancy in the school in the class IV category. 10. In this connection it may be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court also had occasion to consider a 'similar question in Union of India vs. N. Hargopal ( AIR 1987 SC 1227 ) wherein while considering the provisions of section 4 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, it was observed that the Act did not cast any obligation on the employer to employ only those persons whose names are sponsored by the Employment Exchange, although, an obligation was cast on the employer to notify the vacancies to the Employment Exchanges. It was also hold that while the Government was entitled to issue instructions that not merely vacancies should be notified to the Employment Exchanges but that they should also be filled up by the candidates sponsored by such Exchanges through its own department, subject to constitutional provisions or the provisions of any statute, such instructions would not bind the other bodies which were created by statute or functioned under the authority of a statute. 11. The aforesaid view was considerably altered in the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam vs. Visweshwara Rao, 1996 (6) SCC 2161, wherein it was directed that in addition to names being sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for names by publication in Newspapers having wide circulation and also display on their office Notice Boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins and then consider the cases of all the candidates who apply. The aforesaid view was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent cases, and, on the other hand, appears to have been endorsed in the case of Rajkumar and Ors. vs. Shakti Raj & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 2110 . 12. The aforesaid view was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent cases, and, on the other hand, appears to have been endorsed in the case of Rajkumar and Ors. vs. Shakti Raj & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 2110 . 12. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the appeal and to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The applications for leave to appeal and for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.