A. KABIR, J. ( 1 ) HAVING regard to the nature of the facts involved, by consent of the parties the appeal is treated as on day's list and is taken up for hearing along with the application for stay of operation of the order dated 22nd March, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge in C. O. No. 3517 (W) of 1996. ( 2 ) THE said writ application was filed by Shri Sanjib Gupta, the respondent No. 1 in this appeal, challenging the Office Memorandum dated 12th February 1996 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), 24-Parganas (North), approving the second panel prepared by the authorities of the Barrackpore Wesley Hindustani High School, hereinafter referred to as the "said school", pursuant to the directions given by the District Inspector of Schools. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner respondent No. 1 on a Newspaper publication dated 15th April, 1986, made by the said school inviting applications for selection to the post of second clerk, the petitioner applied for filling up the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for an interview on 24th January, 1987, along with other candidates and after the selection process a panel of three candidates was prepared for filling up the said post. The said panel was forwarded by the school authorities to the District Inspector of Schools for his approval. According to the petitioner, nothing further was heard by him until after about ten months when on 26th November, 1987, the writ petitioner respondent received a letter from the Secretary of the said school requiring him to appear for a second interview to be held on 12th December, 1987. It seems that the interview did not take place on that date but was postponed till 10th January, 1988. Upon making inquiries the writ petitioner respondent came to learn that without approving the first panel the District Inspector of Schools without assigning any reason had asked the school authorities by his letter dated 19th November, 1987, to conduct a second interview for the purposes of preparing a fresh panel out of the candidates who had earlier appeared for the interview. ( 4 ) THE second interview was thereafter conducted on 10th January, 1988 and a second panel was prepared and forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for his approval. ( 4 ) THE second interview was thereafter conducted on 10th January, 1988 and a second panel was prepared and forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for his approval. According to the writ petitioner respondent, he was placed in the second position in the second panel whereas in the first panel he had been placed in the first position in order of merit. The writ petitioner respondent thereupon filed a writ petition on 5th February, 1988, being C. O. 941 (W) of 1988, challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools contained in his letter dated 19th November, 1987, directing the school authorities to prepare a fresh panel after holding a second interview of the candidates who had appeared in the first interview. By his judgment and order dated 12th April, 1988, the learned single Judge held that the impugned directions given by the District Inspector of Schools was in violation of the principles of natural justice, and all orders passed pursuant thereto and steps taken in pursuance thereof were invalid. The learned single Judge also directed that the first panel should be considered by the District Inspect of Schools, strictly in accordance with law and that the said panel should not be treated as cancelled. ( 5 ) AN appeal was taken by the school authorities from the order of the learned single Judge, being appeal from Original Order No. 1159 of 1992, and the same was disposed of on 24th November, 1995. The Appeal Court upheld the order passed by the learned single Judge and set aside the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), 24-Parganas (North), with a direction upon the said authority to take steps in the matter in terms of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The matter was, thereafter, considered by the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), 24-Parganas (North) and apparently ignoring the decision in C. O. No. 941 (W) of 1988, as upheld by the Appeal Court, the said authority proceeded to approve the second panel which had been declared invalid by this Court. ( 6 ) THE said decision of the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), 24-Parganas (North), was thereafter challenged by the writ petitioner respondent in the writ application, being C. O. 3517 (W) of 1996. ( 6 ) THE said decision of the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), 24-Parganas (North), was thereafter challenged by the writ petitioner respondent in the writ application, being C. O. 3517 (W) of 1996. By his judgment and order dated 22nd March, 1999, the learned single Judge was of the view that the District Inspect of Schools (S. E.), had exceeded his authority in approving the second panel which had been declared invalid by this Court. Expressing dismay over the manner in which the District Inspector of Schools had tried to overreach the order of this Court, the learned single Judge set aside the order passed by the said authority with a direction to him to consider the first panel afresh in accordance with law. The learned single Judge directed that if in case the said panel was found to be invalid for any reason, a fresh selection would have to be made upon holding fresh interview of the same candidates who appeared in the first interview and the panel so prepared was to be forwarded by the school authorities to the District Inspector of Schools for approval in accordance with law. Consequently, the appointment of the respondent No. 6 in the writ petition, namely, the appellant before us, was, inter alia, declared to be illegal and invalid. Certain other directions were also given by the learned single Judge to cover the period during which the first panel was to be considered afresh by the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), 24-Parganas (North ). ( 7 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the said judgment and order of the learned single Judge. ( 8 ) APPEARING in support of the appeal, Mrs. Samapti Chatterjee submitted that since the learned single Judge in C. O. 941 (W) of 1988 had directed the matter to be considered afresh the District Inspector of Schools required the school authorities to hold a fresh interview after which a second panel was prepared which was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for approval as per the Rules. Mrs. Mrs. Chatterjee submitted that since the appellant had been placed in the first position in the panel which was prepared after the fresh interview, and he had also been appointed by the school authorities as per the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools, it was no longer open to the writ petitioner respondent to claim that the first panel should prevail over the second panel. It was also submitted that since the writ petitioner respondent had appeared at the second interview and had participated in the selection process, he was estopped from challenging the said process. ( 9 ) IN support of her submissions, Mrs. Chatterjee referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in University of Cochin v. N. S Kanjoonjamma [ 1997 (4) SCC 426 ] wherein it was, inter alia, observed that when the respondent No. 1 had participated in the selection process, he was estopped from challenging the correctness of the said procedure. ( 10 ) REFERENCE was also made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1995 (3) SCC Page 486) where it was, inter alia, held that an unsuccessful candidate had no locus standi to impugn the selection process. ( 11 ) MRS. Chatterjee submitted that since the appellant petitioner had been appointed as far back as on 20th February, 1996, in accordance with the rules and since the first panel had been cancelled by the District Inspector of Schools, it was no longer open to the writ petitioner respondent to claim that he had a right to be appointed on the basis of the first panel prepared by the school authorities and the order passed by the learned single Judge was, therefore, liable to be set aside. ( 12 ) APPEARING for the writ petitioner respondent, Mr. Jaharlal De submitted that the District Inspector of Schools had over-stepped his authority in approving the second panel which had been quashed in C. O. No. 941 (W) of 1988, which order had been upheld by the Division Bench in Appeal from Original Order No. 1159 of 1992. Mr. ( 12 ) APPEARING for the writ petitioner respondent, Mr. Jaharlal De submitted that the District Inspector of Schools had over-stepped his authority in approving the second panel which had been quashed in C. O. No. 941 (W) of 1988, which order had been upheld by the Division Bench in Appeal from Original Order No. 1159 of 1992. Mr. De submitted that once the second panel had been declared to be invalid and the District Inspector of Schools had been directed to consider the first panel alone, the District Inspector of Schools had acted rashly in approving the second panel which really amounted to sitting in appeal over the order passed by the learned single Judge in C. O. No. 941 (W) of 1988, as confirmed in Appeal from Original Order No. 1159 of 1992. ( 13 ) MR. De urged that the learned single Judge had rightly commented on the manner in which the matter had been dealt with by the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), 24-Parganas (North), and no interference was called for in the appeal. ( 14 ) THE other respondents had little to add to the submissions already made. ( 15 ) HAVING considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are inclined to agree with the learned single Judge and Mr. De that in view of the clear directions given in the order disposing of C. O. 941 (W) of 1988, there was no scope for the District Inspector of Schools concerned to bypass the first panel and grant approval to the second panel. The learned single Judge held in unambiguous terms that the directions given by the District Inspector of Schools to the school authorities to submit a fresh panel were in violation of the principles of natural justice and that all orders passed pursuant thereto and the steps taken in pursuance thereof were invalid. There is also a clear direction that it was the first panel which was to be considered by the District Inspector of Schools. ( 16 ) AS has been pointed out by Mr De, once all steps taken pursuant to the direction for preparation of a second panel was declared to be invalid, the preparation of the second panel became invalid also. ( 16 ) AS has been pointed out by Mr De, once all steps taken pursuant to the direction for preparation of a second panel was declared to be invalid, the preparation of the second panel became invalid also. Moreover, when there was a direction for the first panel to be considered, it was no longer open to the District Inspector of Schools to consider the second panel, which had been declared invalid. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed along with the application for stay. There will be no order as to costs. A. K. Mathur, CJ.-I agree. Appeal dismissed