JUDGMENT 1. Common question on fact and law have a risen in these appeals and accordingly we desire to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order. 2. A number of writ petitions were filed wherein it was contended that though the writ petitioners are qualified and eligible to offer themselves as candidates for the posts of primary teachers, they have not been sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchanges, upon the appellants having approached such Employment Exchanges to sponsor candidates to fill up vacant posts of primary teachers. The writ petitioners contended that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excise Superintendent vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216 was delivered, in the light of the said judgment by a notification dated 18th May, 1998 the Government of India directed in addition to. notifying the vacancies for the relevant categories (excluding those filled through the Union Public Service Commission/the Staff Selection Commission) to the Employment Exchange, the requisitioning authority/establishment may keeping in view administrative/budgetary constraints arrange for the publication of the recruitment notice for such categories in the "Employment News" published by the Publication Division of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and then consider the case of the candidates who have applied. The writ petitioners further contended that in the said notification dated 18th May, 1998 the Government of India directed that in addition to the above, recruitment notices should be displayed on the Office Notice Boards also for wider publicity. The writ petitioners further contended that under cover of a letter dated 4th June, 1998 the Government of India circulated the said notification dated 18th May, 1998 to the Director of Employment, All States and UT Administrations. The writ petitioners further contended that in the said letter dated 4th June, 1998 it was specifically mentioned that all the State Government/UT Administrations are requested to strictly adhere to the said direction of the Government contained in its order dated 18th May, 1998. The writ petitioners further contended that by another letter dated 19th June, 1998 addressed to the Regional Employment Officer, Regional Employment Exchange, Calcutta, the Employment Officers-in-Charge of all Employment Exchanges in West Bengal and Deputy Chief of UEI and Guidance Bureaus, the State Government directed strict adherance to the instructions contained in the said Government Order dated 18th May,1998. The writ petitioners further contended that by another letter dated 19th June, 1998 addressed to the Regional Employment Officer, Regional Employment Exchange, Calcutta, the Employment Officers-in-Charge of all Employment Exchanges in West Bengal and Deputy Chief of UEI and Guidance Bureaus, the State Government directed strict adherance to the instructions contained in the said Government Order dated 18th May,1998. It is the case of the writ petitioners that despite the said judgment of the Supreme Court and the directions of the Governments, the appellants have not published the recruitment notice for recruitment to the posts of primary teachers, nor have displayed such recruitment notice on the Office Notice Boards of the appellants and on the contrary sought to confine the selection amongst only those who have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In some of the writ petitions it was additionally contended that Ex-census employees, being in exempted category, are entitled to apply directly without the intervention of the Employment Exchange and if they have crossed the age bar, the same is required to be relaxed. In some other writ petitions it was contended that the Employment Exchange has sponsored the names of juniors ignoring the seniors. In a few of the writ petitions it was contended that the concerned Employment Exchange has not sponsored candidates on the basis of the quota of trained and untrained candidates. 3. Some of these writ petitions are disposed of upon notice only to the State of West Bengal whereby the appellants were directed to permit the writ petitioners to appear at the interview and also to condone their age. Writ Petition No. 15603 (W) of 1998 was, however, decided on 14th September, 1998 upon hearing the appellants. The learned Single Judge who decided the said matter considered the relevant Recruitment and Leave Rules of the teachers in primary schools and held that the said rules do not rule out consideration of other cases which are not coming within the purview of Rules 8 and 9. The learned Single Judge also noted the Special Bench decision of this Court in Debasis Dutta & Ors. The learned Single Judge also noted the Special Bench decision of this Court in Debasis Dutta & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1998 (1) CRN 544, as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, reported in 1996(3) SCC 216 and held as follows :- "But while sitting singly I am bound to accept the decision of the Special Bench, I cannot direct the Primary School Council to allow all the writ petitioners to appear at the interview without complying with the Rule 8. I have already held that the said Rule does not forbid the Primary School Council to consider the other candidates not sponsored by the employment exchange. So following the Supreme Court decision reported in (1996) 3 SCC 216 the Primary School Councils concerned in addition to calling for the names from the employment exchange as provided in Rule 8 shall also notify and/or publicize either through newspaper or on the notice board or through telecasting and broadcasting having regard to their financial means, about such recruitment. After such publication is done all the candidates whether they being sponsored or not by the employment exchange office or being registered or not, may apply and if such applications are made the said authority are bound to examine their applications and to find out their eligibilities in terms of Rule 6. In the event they are eligible in terms of Rule 6 they shall be considered along with other candidates sent by the employment exchange and shall scrutinize in terms of aforesaid Rules 9,10 and 11." 4. The learned Single Judge also considered the order of the Government of India dated 18th May, 1998, communication of the Government of India dated 4th June, 1998 as well as the communication of the Government of West Bengal dated 19th June, 1998 and held that the said decision of the Government of India as adopted by the State Government has' no binding effect upon the Primary School Council as the Primary School Council is a statutory body and is to be governed by the provision of the statute itself and further observed that unless the relevant provision of the statute and rules are amended and/or modified by the method as provided in the Act itself no other department or authority can change and/or amend such provision. The learned Single Judge then observed that His Lordship has taken note of the subsequent change of policy by the Central Government with regard to the procedural aspect of recruitment following the aforementioned Supreme Court decision and in the changed circumstances it would be apposite to accept the said policy by the State Government. The learned Single Judge then desired the State Government to make necessary express provision in the line of His Lordship's said decision in the recruitment rules. The learned Single Judge concluded by giving the following directions : "I, therefore, direct all the Primary School Councils shall in future follow the aforesaid practice till such expressed provision is made. Until such measure is taken the respective candidates after having information may apply to the Primary School Council who shall consider those applications in the light of my above decision. Same principle will also follow in case of appointment of non-teaching staff of the secondary schools." 5. Prior thereto, however, a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment delivered on 15th May, 1998 in Ziaul Islam vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P. 29197 (W) of 1997) and a batch of other related petitions held that candidates who are not sponsored by Employment Exchanges are not eligible to be considered for appointment as primary school teachers. 6. Simultaneously with the filing of the appeal registered as M.A.T. No. 3627 of 1998, against the judgment and order dated 14th September, 1998 passed in W.P. 15603 (W) of 1998 an application for stay of the operation of the said judgment was filed. A Division Bench of this Court taking note of the fact that a Special Bench of this Court in Debasis Dutta & Ors. A Division Bench of this Court taking note of the fact that a Special Bench of this Court in Debasis Dutta & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1998(1) CHN 544 , while discussing the applicability of the supreme Court in the case of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., 1996(3) SCC 216, held that the rules as framed by the Government, even though directory in nature have a binding effect and no departure from such rule can be made and further that the Managing Committee of the Institutions concerned cannot violate such rules and therefore, the candidates whose names have not been sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, cannot be entitled to be considered for selection and also upon considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ziaul Islam vs. State of West Bengal (supra) stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14th September, 1998 passed in W.P. No. 15603 (W) of 1998 by a judgment and order dated 11th November, 1998. A Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgment and order dated 11th November, 1998. That Special Leave Petition was disposed of in the manner as follows by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. "Leave granted. This appeal by special leave is directed against the interim order of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court dated 11.11.1998 staying the directions of the learned Single Judge. The present appellants are applicants for post of teacher in the Primary School whose cases have not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. On their approaching the High Court, the learned Single Judge directed that their cases should also be considered by calling them for the interview notwithstanding the fact that their names are not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge the matter was carried to the Division Bench, the Division Bench by the impugned order has stayed the operation of the said order of the learned Single Judge as a result of which the appellants who are the non-sponsored candidates by the Employment Exchange are not being called for interview. The appeal is pending before the Division Bench for final disposal. Mr. The appeal is pending before the Division Bench for final disposal. Mr. Mitra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned order of the Division Bench is contrary to the 3 Judges Bench decision of this Court in the case of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, AP. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, 1996(3) SCC 216. Mr. MukheIjee, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there is a specific law dealing with the recruitment of Primary School Teacher in the State of West Bengal which prohibits consideration of application directly unless the Employment Exchange sponsors the case. The merits of the respective contention will obviously be dealt with by the Division Bench while deciding the appeal. At this stage, we think that the Division Bench was not justified in staying the order of the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, we set aside the interim order of the Division Bench dated 11.11.1998 and direct that the appellants be called for interview, even though their names have not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange but the final decision in their cases (un sponsored candidates) may not be given effect to, and will be subject to the final decision in the pending appeal before the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal at an early date. We make it clear that so far as candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange, they may be interviewed and if selected may be appointed in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly." As a consequence of the said judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a large number of writ petitions interim orders were passed of the same or similar nature as was passed by the Supreme Court. 7. It would, therefore, be our endeavour to find out whether a mandamus can be issued directing the appellants to interview a candidate who has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange or who has crossed the age limit. At this stage it is to be kept in mind that the Government of West Bengal by an order dated 31st May, 1990 directed the Employment Exchanges to submit or sponsor candidates against vacancy notifications in the ratio 1 : 20. At this stage it is to be kept in mind that the Government of West Bengal by an order dated 31st May, 1990 directed the Employment Exchanges to submit or sponsor candidates against vacancy notifications in the ratio 1 : 20. That order of the Government of West Bengal dated 31st May, 1990 is not under challenge in any of these writ petitions. In none of the writ petitions any of the other relevant rules to which we shall advert to hereafter, has been challenged. We have to decide, therefore, whether within the four corners of the subject rules, mandamus as sought for in these writ petitions, can be granted. 8. A mandamus can be granted to discharge a lawful duty which has not been discharged or is not being discharged for any lawful cogent reason and not otherwise. A statutory authority created by the statute can act within the four corners of the statute. It cannot do a thing which it has not been permitted to do. 9. In terms of the provisions contained in the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 each of the appellants has been established by the Government of West Bengal as District Primary School Councils have been established. Section 60 of the said Act casts, amongst others, a duty upon every Primary School Council subject to the prescribed conditions, to appoint teachers and other staff in primary schools, to transfer any such teacher or other staff from one primary school to another primary school within the jurisdiction of the same Primary School Council and to pay to teachers and other staff salaries and allowances, if any, at such rates as may be fixed by the State Government. Section 106 of the said Act has empowered the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. In exercise of the power so vested in the State Government under section 106 of the said Act, the State Government has made rules regulating the Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary Schools in West Bengal. Rules 6,8 and 9 of the said Rules are as follows: "6. In exercise of the power so vested in the State Government under section 106 of the said Act, the State Government has made rules regulating the Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary Schools in West Bengal. Rules 6,8 and 9 of the said Rules are as follows: "6. Qualifications.- (a) No person shall be appointed by the Council as a teacher unless he satisfied the conditions: (i) that he is a citizen of India; and (ii) that he is not below 18 years of age and above 40 years of age; and (iii) that he possesses the minimum educational qualifications as mentioned in sub-rule (b). (b) The required educational qualifications for the post of a teacher shall be:- (i) School Final/Madhyamik pass or equivalent, or (ii) Higher Secondary (XI-Class) pass under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education or equivalent. (c) The decision of the State Government on the question of equivalence for the purpose of sub-rule (b) shall be final. (d) No extra credit shall be given for higher academic qualification at the time of selection of a teacher: Provided that a trained candidate shall be given extra credit in the manner prescribed under sub-rule (c) of rule 9. (e) A trained candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category who have not passed Madhyamik examination or its equivalent shall be eligible for appointment as teacher in Primary School. 8. Calling for the names from the Employment Exchange :- (a) The number of vacancies as determined under rule 4, except in case the vacancies mentioned in sub-rule (a) and sub-rule (b) of rule 14 and the vacancies to be filled by inter-council transfer under the provisions of sub-section (k) of section 19 of the Act, shall be intimated by the Council to the concerned Employment Exchange. For the purpose of preparation of panel for eligible candidates, the Employment Exchange shall be requested to send names of candidates, both trained and untrained, who have requisite qualifications and in order of seniority of registration, and the list of candidates so prepared shall comprise of at least 50% of trained candidates unless the number of registered trained candidates at the concerned Employment Exchange is sufficient to comprise of the 50% of the names in the list: Provided that in case of non-availability of sufficient number of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes in the Employment Exchange of the concerned revenue district, a reference shall be made by the Council to the Special Employment Exchange for the Scheduled, Castes/Scheduled Tribes at the State Level for sending further names. (b) The letter to the Employment Exchange mentioned in sub-rule (a) shall contain, among other matters :- (i) the required minimum qualifications of candidates; (ii) the reservation quota for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates and Physically Handicapped candidates; and (iii) the manner of vacancies to be filled up. (c) The total number of vacancies existing on the 31st December of a calender year shall be treated as the number of vacancies for that year. 9. Selection procedure:- (a) On or after the names of candidates for the posts of teachers are obtained from the Employment Exchange, all candidates shall be communicated in writing to produce testimonials/certificates for computation of their marks in the score sheets prepared for the purpose of such selection. (b) Credit shall be given and computed in the following manner: (i) there shall be 100 marks in total as full marks; (ii) the full marks shall be allotted to four different aspects of the candidate's eligibility in the following manner:- 1. Academic Qualification 65 marks 2. Training 20 marks 3. Written test/Oral interview 10 marks 4. (b) Credit shall be given and computed in the following manner: (i) there shall be 100 marks in total as full marks; (ii) the full marks shall be allotted to four different aspects of the candidate's eligibility in the following manner:- 1. Academic Qualification 65 marks 2. Training 20 marks 3. Written test/Oral interview 10 marks 4. Co-curricular Activity 5 marks Total 100 marks (iii) the percentage of marks to the total full marks obtained by the candidate in School Final/Madhyamik/Higher Secondary (XI Class) shall be computed as percentage of 65 and recorded in the score sheet, and if a candidate has passed two of the above public examinations, the better result only shall be computed; (iv) the percentage of marks to the total full marks obtained in Junior Basic Training Certificate Examination or equivalent shall be computed as percentage of 20 (twenty) and recorded in the score sheet; (v) marks obtained in the interviews shall be recorded in the score sheet; (vi) in awarding marks for co-curricular activities one mark shall be credited for each of the certificates mentioned below:- (A) A certificate that he/she represented the district in State level games, sports, issued by district level sports authority, (B) a certificate that he/she has shown excellence in cultural activities representing the district in State level competitions issued by district level authority; (C) minimum 'A' certificate of National Cadet Corps, (D) a certificate of successful participation in literating the illiterates by a district level officer, and (E) a diploma/certificate in Music/Arts and Craft on completion of a course of at least one year's duration from any University/ recognised Government institutions: Provided that the maximum of such marks to be credited shall not exceed five; (vii) 18 (eighteen) marks shall be credited for academic qualification to an eligible candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category who have required qualification as mentioned in sub-rule (e) of rule 6..Awarding of marks for training, interview and co-curricular activities shall be done in accordance with clauses (iv), (v) and (vi) respectively. (c) (i) The total marks obtained by each candidate for academic qualification, training and co-curricular activities shall be computed in the manner prescribed in clauses (iii), (iv) and (vi) and a list of names of all candidates of each category, namely, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Physically Handicapped and others shall be prepared in descending order of total marks obtained by them. (ii) The Staff Selection Committee, in its meeting shall finalise the total number of candidates from the top of the lists mentioned in clause (i) of sub-rule (c), to be called for interview. The number of candidates to be called for interview shall be five times the number of vacancy unless the total number of candidates is insufficient for the same. (iii) The candidates selected for interview shall be intimated the date, time and place for their interview. (d) After the interview all the scores shall be recorded and the marks obtained by a candidate shall be added up and the names of candidates shall be arranged according to marks obtained in a descending order. (e) After the process as laid down in sub-rule (b) is complete, the Selection Committee shall arrange the names serially down from the top of the list. A panel of such number of candidates as there are vacancies plus 10% of such vacancies shall be prepared. The reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Physically Handicapped persons shall have to be strictly maintained in the panel. The panel shall show separately names of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Physically Handicapped and other eligible candidates. (D Thereafter the panel thus prepared shall be placed in the meeting of the Council for passing and the total number of eligible candidate included in the panel shall be the same as the number of vacancies plus 10% of such existing vacancies." A reading of the above rules would show that to fill up the vacancies in the posts of primary teachers existing as on 31st December of a calender year within the district, the following steps are to be taken: (1) The number of such vacancies, the reservation of quota for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes candidates and Physically Handicapped candidates and the required minimum qualifications of candidates must be intimated by the District Primary Council to the concerned Employment Exchange with a request to the Employment Exchange concerned to send names of candidates both trained and untrained who have requisite qualifications and in order of seniority of registration. (2) The Employment Exchange, in terms of the said decision of the Government dated 31st May, 1990, will submit the list of candidates against such vacancy notification in the ratio of 1:20 but while doing so the list of candidates to be prepared by the Employment Exchange shall comprise of at least 50% of trained candidates provided the number of registered trained candidates at their concerned Employment Exchange is sufficient to comprise of the 50% of the names in the list. (3) In case of non-availability of sufficient number of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the concerned Employment Exchange, the said Employment Exchange would not be able to list sufficient number of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the list of sponsored candidates and in such circumstances a reference shall be made by the Council to the Special Employment Exchange for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at the State level for sending further names. (4) Such sponsored candidates shall thereupon be requested in writing to produce their testimonials and certificates for computation of their marks in the score-sheets. (5) The total marks of each candidate, who would respond to such request, for academic qualification, training and co-curricular activities shall be then computed in the manner prescribed in clauses (iii), (iv) and (vi) of Rule 9(b) and then list of all candidates of each category, namely, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Physically Handicapped and others shall be prepared in descending order of total marks obtained by them. Thereafter the Staff Selection Committee would at a meeting decide to call five times of the number of vacancies, unless the total number of candidates is insufficient for the same, from the top of the list as prepared on the basis of the total marks obtained by each candidate for academic qualification, training and co-curricular activities. (6) At this stage when the list of the candidates to be called at interview is prepared, their respective scoring to the extent of 90 marks out of 100 marks has already been ascertained. Only 10 marks to be obtained at written test oral interviews have not yet been ascertained. (7) The candidates so selected for interview would then be intimated the date, time and place for their interview. The interview would then be held. Only 10 marks to be obtained at written test oral interviews have not yet been ascertained. (7) The candidates so selected for interview would then be intimated the date, time and place for their interview. The interview would then be held. At the interview each candidate would be given marks out of 10 marks allotted therefore. Such marks would then be added to the other marks a candidate has already scored. (8) The Selection Committee would then prepare a list and arrange the names serially on the basis of the total marks obtained by them. Out of such list a panel would be prepared in respect of the vacancies declared plus 10% of such vacancies. (9) While, however, preparing such list on merit basis the reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Physically Handicapped persons shall be strictly maintained in the panel and therefore the panel shall separately show the names of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Physically Handicapped and other eligible candidates. (10) Such panel shall, thereafter, be placed and passed at a meeting of the Council. 10. As was submitted before and accepted by, the learned Single Judge, who dealt with W.P. No. 15603 (W) of 1998, so was submitted before us that since Rule 6 of the said Rules do not mention registration of a person with the Employment Exchange as a necessary qualification for being appointed as a primary teacher, there is no bar to give a person appointment to the post of primary teacher if he is not registered with the Employment Exchange. It was also submitted in the light of the observations made by the said learned Single Judge that if a person is otherwise qualified but he is not permitted to offer himself as a candidate in the matter of public appointment, such action would contravene Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By no stretch of imagination registration of his name by a person with the Employment Exchange can be said to be a qualification. Since the validity of the Rules have not been challenged, we refrain to address ourselves in regard to validity of the action in not permitting the otherwise eligible candidate to offer himself as a candidate to fill up a vacant post of primary teacher when he has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 11. The question as we see is not either qualification or eligibility. 11. The question as we see is not either qualification or eligibility. The question is whether the appellant Councils could look for any other source than sponsorship by the Employment Exchange. By the Rules referred to above the appellant Councils have been directed to source candidates only through Employment Exchange. They have not been permitted to source such candidates through any other known methods. If that is the position the appellant Councils cannot consider the case of any other who has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. If the appellant Councils cannot source candidates to fill up vacant posts of primary teachers from any other source apart from Employment Exchange than it cannot be said that in not entertaining the case of the persons who have not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the appellant Councils have or any of them committed any act which is unauthorised or illegal. If they had done so that would have been unauthorised and illegal, for each of the appellant Councils having been established by the said Act, they can act only within the four corners of the said Act and Rules made thereunder and not otherwise. No mandamus can be issued to direct a Statutory Authority to act unauthorisedly or illegally. 12. In Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. vs. KB.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., 1996(6) SCC 216 , the following observations were made by the Supreme Court. "Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the Employment Exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Under those circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the Employment Exchange, and Employment Exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the Employment Exchange, and Employment Exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider 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 have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates." 13. In Debasis Dutta & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1998 (1) CHN 544 , a Special Bench of this Court, comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court, was called upon to consider the effect of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in relation to recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff of recognised secondary schools. The Special Bench found that in that case (Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors.) there was nothing to show that in terms of the Recruitment Rules, vacancies could be filled up only from amongst the candidates whose names had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Special Bench noted the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar & Ors. vs. Shakti Raj & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 2210 and Arun Tewari & Ors. vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors., reported in AIR 1998 SC 331, where the decision of the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent's case (supra) was considered and concluded that since the applicable Rules provide that until the Employment Exchange is unable to sponsor candidates, vacancies would be filled up only from amongst the candidates whose names had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, selection process must remain confined amongst them only and no-one else can be included therewith. 14. We think that the said Special Bench decision of this Court is decisive of the matter. 14. We think that the said Special Bench decision of this Court is decisive of the matter. We have not been shown any judgment of any High Authority which says that if Rules insist that the vacancies must be filled up by the candidates to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the Court can direct filling up of such vacancies by candidates who have not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange in derogation of the Rules. 15. Similarly when the, Rule says that candidates upto the age of 40 years are eligible, a candidate who has crossed the age of 40 years is ineligible. There is no power to relax the age limit. If such a candidate is employed and for that matter permitted to appear at the interview, will it not be unauthorised? Statutory law is binding law. Rule of law imposes an obligation to adhere to statutory laws. No Court can give a direction contrary to a statutory law. It is incorrect to assume that in Excise Superintendent's case (supra) Supreme Court gave any direction contrary to a law prescribed by statute. 16. In some of the orders appealed against the learned Single Judges have directed that the writ petitioners to be interviewed by the appellant Councils. If the interviews are held simpliciter in terms of those directions then the person so interviewed may score anything between 1 to 10 marks earmarked for interview out of a total of 100 marks and accordingly would stand no chance of getting employment. If at the interview the marked obtainable by the candidates in terms of sub-clauses (iii), (iv) and (vi) of clause (b) of Rule 9 are taken into consideration along with the marks obtained at the interview, then it may so happen that a person may by reason of high scoring at the interview get the job although he may not come within the zone of consideration in terms of sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of Rule 9 of the said Rules upon consideration of marks obtained by him in terms of sub-clauses (iii), (iv) and (vi) of clause (b) of Rule 9 of the said Rules. 17. In these circumstances we allow each of the appeals and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents/writ petitioners excepting writ petition Nos. 17. In these circumstances we allow each of the appeals and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents/writ petitioners excepting writ petition Nos. W.P. No. 8209 (W) of 2000, W.P. No. 8197 (W) of 2000, W.P. No. 8208 (W) of 2000, W.P. No. 9215 (W) of 2000 and W.P. No. 8204 (W) of 2000 where the contention is that the concerned Employment Exchange has not sponsored the names of the writ petitioners while sponsored the names of juniors or in breach of the quota rule. Those writ petitions are remitted back to the learned single Judge for re-consideration. Those writ petitions must be decided upon notice to the Employment Exchange concerned and upon permitting the Employment Exchange concerned to file affidavit-in-opposition. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Before parting it is our duty to observe that it is not only a judicial indiscipline to render a Special Bench judgment, which is binding in accordance with the Rules of this Court upon a learned Single Judge, by a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge but the same is also against the public interest as thereby the law settled by a High Authority stands unsettled. In Debasis Dutta (supra) the Special Bench specifically held that the candidates whose names have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, can only be considered during the selection process for recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff in secondary schools. This judgment was delivered by the Special Bench after consideration of the decision of the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent's case (supra).The learned Single Judge was not even called upon in W.P. No. 15603 (W) of 1998 to decide anything in relation to selection or recruitment of teaching or non-teaching staff of secondary schools and despite having had noted the judgment of the Special Bench in Debasis Dutta (supra), was not justified in directing application of the principles enunciated by His Lordship in 'His judgment delivered on 14th September, 1998 in W.P. No. 15603 (W) of 1998 in case of appointment of non-teaching staff of the secondary schools. This is against the principles of judicial discipline and this has also sought to unsettle the settled law laid down by a High Authority as that of a Special Bench of this Court. We hope and trust that such a situation will not recur henceforth. Appeals allowed.