JUDGMENT Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. The present writ petitioner applied for the post of an Assistant Teacher in the concerned school pursuant to the advertisement given in the newspaper. The qualification required by the school authorities was as follows: "M.A. (Bengali) with Sanskrit at degree level and preferably trained." 2. Interview was held and the writ petitioner was found to be the only candidate possessing the required qualification. The said fact has been admitted by the learned Advocate appearing for Managing Committee before me. Despite the fact that the writ petitioner was the only candidate who was found eligible the panel was not sent to the District Inspector of Schools concerned by the school authority on the plea that there should be at least three-man panel in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. 3. G.R. Bhattacharjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) disposed of the earlier writ petition filed by the present writ petitioner inter alia directing the school authority to send the panel and consequently directed the District Inspector of Schools concerned to approve the panel in accordance with law. The said order of G.R. Bhattachmjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) was appealed from by the school authority. The Division Bench after considering the facts and circumstances directed the District Inspector of Schools concerned to pass appropriate order on the basis of the panel to be sent to him by the school authority. The Division Bench categorically rejected the plea of the school authority that in the absence of all papers and available records it would not be possible for the District Inspector of Schools to approve the panel. The Division Bench in the judgment has observed as follows: "The learned trial Judge disposed of the writ application directing the Managing Committee to send the panel to the District Inspector of Schools. Mr. Bose, appearing on behalf of the appellants has drawn our attention to paragraph 5(a) of the Recruitment Rules in terms whereof the Selection Committee after holding interview of the candidates shall prepare the panel of three candidates eligible for appointment for such post in order of merit. As in the instant case, according to the Selection Committee except the writ petitioner no other candidate is qualified, the question of preparation of any panel of three candidates did not arise. As in the instant case, according to the Selection Committee except the writ petitioner no other candidate is qualified, the question of preparation of any panel of three candidates did not arise. The question which has been raised on behalf of the writ petitioner is that until and unless the panel is sent, the District Inspector of Schools would not be able to ascertain as to whether other persons have the requisite qualification or not. The argument does not appeal to us, inasmuch as it is the clear stand of the Managing Committee of the school that no person other than the writ petitioner fulfilled the requirement so far as the qualification for appointment of Assistant Teacher in the said school is concerned. Be that as it may, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the District Inspector of Schools to examine the relevant papers and issue appropriate order in accordance with law at an early date, and preferably within two weeks from the date of communication of this order, so that provisions of the Recruitment Rules are not violated. He is also requested to give sufficient guidance to the school authorities in the matter." 4. It is contended by and on behalf of the Managing Committee before me that since the Recruitment Rules provide for three-man panel and since the writ petitioner is the only suitable candidate, such attempt to fill up the vacancy is infructuous and the school authority is free to proceed afresh for such appointment. It is also contended by the Managing Committee that since the School Service Commission has been appointed with effect from 1997 any further appointment should be done by the Commission itself and following the rules prescribed therefor. 5. Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated August 3, 1999 whereby the contention of the writ petitioner was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools mainly on two counts: '(i) Consideration of one-man panel would be violative of the Recruitment Rules; . (ii) Since the School Service Commission has come into effect from November 1, 1997, the school authority has to appoint teachers on the recommendation of the Commission itself. 6. I have carefully perused the pleadings and the concerned documents which are annexed to the writ petition. (ii) Since the School Service Commission has come into effect from November 1, 1997, the school authority has to appoint teachers on the recommendation of the Commission itself. 6. I have carefully perused the pleadings and the concerned documents which are annexed to the writ petition. In my opinion, the first question urged by the Managing Committee is no more tenable in view of the fact that the said issue has already been decided by the Division Bench. The Division Bench, in my opinion, has affirmed the order of G.R. Bhattachmjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) and that would be apparent from the fact that the contention raised before me by the Managing Committee has been rejected by the Division Bench. 7. The only issue which was pending is the consideration of the District Inspector of Schools with regard to the other terms and conditions which are relevant and necessary for ultimate appointment and obviously after the approval of the said panel. The District Inspector of Schools in his order has recorded that he has examined all the records pertaining to the interview and it is an admitted position that the writ petitioner is the only eligible candidate found out at all levels. 8. The learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has relied on a decision reported in 2000 WBLR (Cal) 51, Arun Kiran Adak vs. State & Ors., where the contention that one-man panel cannot be approved has been negated by Tarun Chatterjee, J. 9. In my opinion all rules should be given a meaning which is logical and easy to be worked upon. Preparation of three-men panel is nothing but an option given to the District Inspector of Schools for consideration of the relevant credentials of the persons named in the panel to avoid unnecessary criticism of discrimination. In the instant case when it is an admitted position that the writ petitioner is the only suitable candidate found out, the question of preparation of three-men panel is nothing but an impossible task. Hence I feel that such rule should be given a liberal construction in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, I hold and obviously being prompted by the order of the Division Bench, the District Inspector of Schools is wrong in rejecting the contention of the writ petition on this score. 10. Hence I feel that such rule should be given a liberal construction in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, I hold and obviously being prompted by the order of the Division Bench, the District Inspector of Schools is wrong in rejecting the contention of the writ petition on this score. 10. With regard to the second limb of arguments of the Managing Committee of the school I feel that such an argument is also baseless in view of the fact that subject interview was held much prior to the School Service Commission having come into force. The subject interview and the result therefrom was questioned before this Hon'ble Court in the earlier writ petition. The issue was pending before the writ Court and then before the Division Bench and ultimately decided by the District Inspector of Schools concerned. By this time the School Service Commission came into existence. Hence the plea of the Managing Committee and the reasoning given by the District Inspector of Schools to that effect is also without any authority of law. 11. In these circumstances, the writ petition succeeds. The order impugned dated August 3, 1999 is set aside. The District Inspector of Schools concerned is directed to approve the said one-man panel if he finds it otherwise lawful and made in accordance with the relevant rules in terms of the order of the Division Bench forthwith. 12. Since the present matter involves the question of interpretation of the order of the Division Bench, I suo motu grant stay of operation of this order for a period of three weeks from date so that the parties can take up the issue before the Division Bench. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. If applied for, let xerox-certified copy of this order be given to the parties expeditiously. Writ petition disposed of