Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 116 (CAL)

BISWANATH DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2001-03-02

PRATAP KUMAR RAY

body2001
P. K. RAY, J. ( 1 ) - This writ application has been filed by a candidate Biswanath Das for the post of Clerk of Taherpur Girls High School praying for necessary writ and/or direction from this Court directing the authorities to give effect of the panel as approved on 28th March 1995 for the said post in question within the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Nadia hereinafter refer to as concerned District Inspector of Schools and for other relief cancelling the decision to hold fresh interview on 23. 9. 95. In the writ application, the following relief have been sought for: (a)a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to act inaccordance with law and to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Clerk in Taherpur Girls' High School, P. O. Taherpur, District-Nadia in pursuance of the approved panel, being annexure "e" to this application; (B)a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to hold any interview for appointment to the post of Clerk in Taherpur Girls' High School, P. O. Taherpur, District-Nadia on the basis of the impugned letters of interview being annexures "f" and "g" to this petition and to rescind, revoke, cancel and withdraw the same; (C)a writ in the nature of prohibition commanding the respondents not to give any effect and/or further effect to the impugned letters of interview, being annexures "f" and "g" to this application and not to hold any interview for preparation of panel for the appointment of clerk in Taherpur Girls' High School, P. O. Taherpur, District-Nadia; (D)a writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court all records relating to the case so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the impugned orders and/or by passing appropriate orders and directions; (E)rule in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) above; (F)an ad-interim order restraining the respondents from giving any effect and/or further effect to the impugned letters of interview being annexures "f" and "g" to this application and from holding any interview for preparation of panel for appointment to the post of Clerk in Taherpur, District-Nadia. (G)to make the Rule absolute; (H)to pass such other or further order or orders; (I)costs of and incidental to this application; ( 2 ) ONE Anima Biswas was added as respondent and has filed an opposition. (G)to make the Rule absolute; (H)to pass such other or further order or orders; (I)costs of and incidental to this application; ( 2 ) ONE Anima Biswas was added as respondent and has filed an opposition. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Headmistress on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and 4 and a reply to that effect also has been filed by the writ petitioner. ( 3 ) IT is submitted by the learned advocate of the writ petitioner that in terms of the panel as prepared on 3. 3. 91 by the Selection Committee relating to the said post, the School Authority had referred the said panel for approval to the District Inspector of Schools concerned. Since, there was silence on issue in question, the writ petitioner moved a writ application C. O. No. 2119 (W) of 1993 before the S. Chatterjee, J. of this Court on 13th January, 1993, when at the motion stage the matter was disposed of directing the District Inspector of Schools to take effective steps regarding approval of the panel within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. It is further submitted that a contempt application was filed in January, 1995. Thereafter, however, the panel was approved on 28th March, 1995 by the concerned District Inspector of Schools. Inspite of approval of the panel wherein the writ petitioner stood first, by the letter dated 1. 9. 95, the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School directed the writ petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee on 23. 9. 95 for fresh interview on mentioning that a fresh interview would be held in terms of Memo No. 1516/general/se dated 25th August, 1992 issued by District Inspector of Schools (SE) Nadia, being annexure F, page 28 of the writ application. ( 4 ) CHALLENGING the said action of the School Authority directing the writ petitioner to appear in the fresh interview inspite of order of approval existing in his favour by the decision of the District Inspector of Schools concerned, this writ application has been moved, praying the reliefs as mentioned above. ( 5 ) BY filling affidavit-in-opposition, it is submitted by School Authority directing that with reference to the interview held on 3rd March, 1991, panel was not validly prepared and accordingly the Headmistress and the other members of the Selection Committee did not sign the panel and score sheet. ( 5 ) BY filling affidavit-in-opposition, it is submitted by School Authority directing that with reference to the interview held on 3rd March, 1991, panel was not validly prepared and accordingly the Headmistress and the other members of the Selection Committee did not sign the panel and score sheet. The matter was placed in the meeting of the Managing Committee on 22nd March, 1991 and in view of grievance of the majority members of the Managing Committee on the issue of panel. Meeting was deferred to on 25th May, 1991. On 1st July, 1991 further meetings held but the panel was not approved by the Managing Committee. It is contended further that on 18th July, 1991 the Meeting Minute Book was taken away by the Secretary and he incorporated a decision in the Minutes about approval of panel though such approval of the panel was not at all passed in the meeting of the Managing Committee. The Secretary in connivance with the candidate concerned, that is the writ petitioner, manipulated things and referred the panel to the District Inspector of Schools concerned. In view of such on 5. 8. 1991, majority members, being total number six of the Managing Committee lodged a grievance to the District Inspector of Schools being annexure R at page 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition. On the basis of such, District Inspector of Schools concerned held an enquiry through Assistant Inspector of Schools, Ranaghat Sub-Division and ultimately by his decision dated 25th August, 1992 directed holding of fresh interview with the same self candidates following the recruitment rules strictly. It is submitted that District Inspector of Schools concerned by his decision dated 25th August, 1992 appearing at page 16 of the opposition has assigned the reason for non-approval of the panel dated 3. 3. 91 to this effect that there were irregularities and departure from existing rules and procedures for recruitment of a staff. That as per direction of Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chatterjee, dated 13th January, 1993, the matter was taken up by the District Inspector of Schools concerned and by his decision dated 17th March, 1993 confirmed the earlier view of "holding fresh interview" as passed on 25th August, 1992. In this decision dated 17th March 1993 in details, it was mentioned that in assessment sheet there was no signatures of Headmistress and teachers representative, who were members of the Selection Committee. In this decision dated 17th March 1993 in details, it was mentioned that in assessment sheet there was no signatures of Headmistress and teachers representative, who were members of the Selection Committee. It is further noted in this decision that other persons who were not at all the members of the Selection Committee namely Dhiraj Chatterjee and Kalyani Chakroborty had signed the score sheet. Further reason assigned that external expert was not appointed following the rules. ( 6 ) IT is submitted that the new incumbent joined in the post of District Inspector of Schools, who, however, by his letter dated 16th August, 1994 directed the School Authority that is the Administrator at the relevant time, to rectify the defects. It is submitted that no rectification was done relating to earlier panel but the Managing Committee decided to hold fresh interview as per decision of the District Inspector of Schools concerned dated 25th August, 1992. The second interview held in pursuance of the direction on 3rd March, 1996. It is submitted that despite the order in this writ application passed by the Hon'ble Justice G. R. Bhattacharya, the writ petitioner did not appear in the second interview. Selection process has been completed but in view of the order dated 20th September, 1995, the panel as yet has not been approved. ( 7 ) IN affidavit-in-reply, the writ petitioner has annexed some documents namely score sheets and others and contended that as per judgment of this Court since 50 per cent members were present in the selection process relating to the interview held on 3. 3. 91, the panel dated 3. 3. 91 as reached finality by approval of the District Inspector of Schools concerned, to be given effect to. ( 8 ) IT is submitted by the learned advocate of the writ petitioner on the aforesaid factual matrix that since in the interview held on 3. 3. 91, 50 per cent members of Selection Committee was present, on the basis of judgment reported in the case District Inspector of Schools, Murshidabad v. Samsul Huda and Ors. , reported in 1987 (2) CLJ 144, there were no illegality in the panel. 3. 91, 50 per cent members of Selection Committee was present, on the basis of judgment reported in the case District Inspector of Schools, Murshidabad v. Samsul Huda and Ors. , reported in 1987 (2) CLJ 144, there were no illegality in the panel. It is further submitted that the District Inspector of Schools concerned as per the recruitment rules had no power to disapprove the panel and to direct the fresh interview as such power vests to the Director of School Education, West Bengal, in terms of the decision of this Court in the case Birendra Pratap Singh v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , passed by Hon'ble Justice G. R. Bhattacharya, on 11. 2. 94 being an unreported decision. Relying upon the said, it is contended by the learned advocate of the petitioner that the decision dated 25th August 1992 of District Inspector of Schools concerned directing fresh interview on cancelling the panel dated 3. 3. 91 is of without jurisdiction and in pursuance thereof, all the steps as taken by the Managing Committee namely holding of the second interview and preparation of the panel, all are nullity in the eye of law. It is further submitted by the learned advocate of the petitioner that the documents as are annexed in the affidavit-in-opposition being the decision dated 25th August, 1992 directing fresh interview, the decision dated 17th March, 1993 confirming such decision of fresh interview while adjudicating the matter as per direction dated 13th January, 1993 passed by Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chatterjee on the writ application as moved by the writ petitioner earlier and the document dated 16th August 1994, of the District Inspector of Schools concerned directing rectification of panel, all are after thought papers. It is submitted further that had there been existence of all those documents, the respondents School Authority and/or District Inspector of Schools concerned surely would have resisted the direction of Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chatterjee in earlier writ application. It is submitted that reliance cannot be made on the said documents. ( 9 ) THE learned advocate of the respondent School Authority submitted that while the matter was moved before Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chatterjee, there was no communication made to that effect and School Authority had no knowledge about such. It is submitted that reliance cannot be made on the said documents. ( 9 ) THE learned advocate of the respondent School Authority submitted that while the matter was moved before Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chatterjee, there was no communication made to that effect and School Authority had no knowledge about such. Furthermore, it is contended that the District Inspector of Schools concerned had no notice of such case as is reflected from the decision of the District Inspector of Schools concerned dated 17th March, 1993 appearing at page 19 of the affidavit-in-opposition. It is further submitted that District Inspector of Schools concerned has the jurisdiction/the authority to take any decision while considering the approval issue of the panel as was referred to by the School Authority and accordingly the decision by the concerned District Inspector of Schools was valid and justified. It is further contended that writ petitioner despite the direction of this Court passed by Hon'ble Justice G. R. Bhattacharya in this writ application did not appear in the interview. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid factual matrix of the case and the submissions of the learned advocates, the following points emerge for adjudication by this Court:- (A)whether the District Inspector of Schools (SE) of any District has any power/jurisdiction to cancel the panel relating to the interview for appointment of a candidate for the post of teaching and non-teaching staff in terms of the recruitment rule issued by Director of School Education, West Bengal and whether in view of the judgment of this Court, in Birendra Pratap Singh (supra) case being an unreported judgment of G. R. Bhattacharya, J. , the decision as passed by the District Inspector of Schools concerned in the present case directing fresh interview would be declared as nullity. (B)whether in view of the decision dated 25th August, 1992 directing fresh interview in view of the irregularities in preparation of the earlier panel, the subsequent decision dated 17th March, 1993 confirming such and in absence of any further rectification of the panel, the approval of panel with reference to the interview dated 3. 3. 91 as done by the District Inspector of Schools concerned on 28th March, 1995 would be considered as valid exercise of power and whether such can be given effect to. 3. 91 as done by the District Inspector of Schools concerned on 28th March, 1995 would be considered as valid exercise of power and whether such can be given effect to. (C)whether the documents on the basis of which the earlier panel was cancelled and thereby the subsequent panel has been prepared by a fresh interview would be considered as valid and to that effect fate of the writ application. ( 11 ) THAT the first interview held on 3rd March, 1991. Prior permission was issued. Names were invited from the local employment exchange in the year 1990. For selection of non-teaching staff, the rule under office Memo No. 2816 (17) GA dated 4th December, 1989 is the guiding direction issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal. The said procedure is named as "procedure for recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff" hereinafter which to be referred to as recruitment procedure of the year 1989. For adjudication of the matter, the relevant provisions from the said procedure is quoted hereinbelow: "5 (a ). . . . . . . . . . . (c) The panel will be framed with average of marks awarded by each of the members of the Selection Committee. If any member of the Selection Committee wants to keep his opinion reserved the average will be calculated on the basis of marks awarded by other members. (d) The Managing Committee after due consideration and approval shall forward the panel so prepared by the Selection Committee with all relevant papers to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) of the District for approval. The Secretary after being authorised by the Managing Committee or the Administrator will issue intimation for appointment in order of position in the panel through Registered Post Card after receiving the panel duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools (SE ). The District Inspector of Schools (SE) will convey his decision ordinarily within a month from the date of the receipt of the panel. The panel will remain valid for one year with effect from the date of approval of the District Inspector of Schools (SE) despite any of the empanelled candidates either not joining or leaving the post within life-time of the panel. Names of such candidates who do not join within 3 months from the receipt of the appointment letter will be removed from the panel. Names of such candidates who do not join within 3 months from the receipt of the appointment letter will be removed from the panel. " ( 12 ) THAT the rule under name and style the management of recognised non-Government institutions (aided and un-aided rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Management Rules, 1969) was framed and constituted in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and in particular by Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 45 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963. The Management Rule 1969 is the guiding rule for recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff of institutions which are aided and un-aided. Under Rule 28 (1) of such Management Rule, 1969, the Managing Committee of a School was given power to appoint teaching or non-teaching staff on following direction and guidelines as was issued by the State Government or the Director of School Education. For adjudication of the matter, the relevant provisions are quoted hereinbelow:-"45 (1) The State Government may, after previous publication, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. 45 (2) (d) the composition, powers and functions of Managing Committee of Institutions;"rule 28 (1) and Rule 28 (2) of the Management Rules are quoted hereinbelow:-"28 (1) In an Aided Institution the Committee shall, subject to the approval of the Director, have the power- (i) to appoint in accordance with the directions given by the Director in this behalf, teachers and other employees on permanent basis against permanent vacancies, if available within the sanctioned strength of the teachers and other employees, approval of such appointment being thereafter sought for, from the Director or any officer authorised by him ordinarily within a fortnight from the date of decision of the Committee; (ii) to appoint in accordance with directions given by the Director in his behalf, teachers and other employees, on temporary basis against permanent or temporary vacancies, if available within the sanctioned strength of teachers and other employees, approval of such appointment being thereafter sought for from the Director of any other officer authorised by him ordinarily within a week from the date of decision of the Committee. (iii) to extend the services of the teachers and other employees beyond the date of superannuation, approval for such extension being thereafter sought for from the Director of any officer authorised by him ordinarily within a week from the date of decision of the Committee. (2) If the officer authorised by the Director under sub-rule (1) does not approve of the appointment or extension of service in any case coming under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-rule (1), as the case may be, he shall refer the case to the Director and in the case of disapproval of any appointment or extension of service, the Director or the officer authorised by him shall communicate to the Committee the reasons therefor. " ( 13 ) HENCE, from the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that "the procedure for recruitment" issued by Director of School Education, West Bengal vested the power to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) of any District to take all decisions, relating to recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff as controlled and guided by Management Rule, 1969 and such power accordingly is nothing but delegation of power by the Director of School Education, West Bengal to the delegate the District Inspector of Schools concerned. ( 14 ) UNDER the Recruitment Procedure, 1989 and particularly under clause 5 (d), a panel was required to be sent to the District Inspector of Schools concerned for approval and in this provision District Inspector of Schools was vested power to convey his decision ordinarily within a month from the date of receipt of the panel. ( 15 ) NOW the moot question is whether District Inspector of Schools concerned of a District was vested with the power only to approve the panel and had no other powers namely referring back the panel pointing out the defects, direction for fresh interview, cancellation of the panel etc. and whether such power vests to the Director of School Education. Further question is what is the meaning of taking 'decision' as appearing in the said procedure. No definition of the word 'approval' has been given in the Management Rules, 1969 and/or in the said Act as well as in the procedures of recruitment. The word 'approval' as per Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition means as follows:-"the act of confirming, rectifying, assenting, sanctioning, or consenting to some act or thing done by another. No definition of the word 'approval' has been given in the Management Rules, 1969 and/or in the said Act as well as in the procedures of recruitment. The word 'approval' as per Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition means as follows:-"the act of confirming, rectifying, assenting, sanctioning, or consenting to some act or thing done by another. "approval" implies knowledge and exercise of discretion after knowledge. Mccarton v. Sanderson, 111 Mont. 407, 109 p. 2d 1108, 1112. The act of a Judge or Magistrate in sanctioning and accepting as satisfactory a bond, security, or other instrument which is required by law to pass his inspection and receive his approbation before it becomes operative. "the word 'approve' has been defined as Black's Law Dictionary as follows:"to be satisfied with, to confirm, ratify, sanction, or consent to some act or thing done by another. To sanction officially; to ratify; to confirm; or pronounce good; think or judge well of; admit the propriety or excellence of; be pleased with. Distinguishable from "authorise", meaning to permit a thing to be done in future. To take to one's proper and separate use. To improve; to enhance the value or profits of anything. To enclose and cultivate common or waste land. " ( 16 ) FROM the aforesaid dictionary meaning it clearly speaks that the approving authority has the power to scrutinise the matter and thereby to take a decision. The word 'approval' though with reference to interpretation of section 21 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, came for adjudication in the case of Committee of Management, reported in 1995 supple (3) SCC 244, wherein it is held:"it cannot exercise its function effectively unless it scrutinises the material and applies its mind carefully to the facts on record. Hence, if the Commission goes through the entire record and the merit of the action taken, its action cannot be faulted. " ( 17 ) THE word 'decision' as appearing in the Recruitment Procedure, 1989 as also its consequence to be looked into. It is a golden rule of interpretation of a statute that each and every word of said statute to be looked into in determining the issue. " ( 17 ) THE word 'decision' as appearing in the Recruitment Procedure, 1989 as also its consequence to be looked into. It is a golden rule of interpretation of a statute that each and every word of said statute to be looked into in determining the issue. The word 'decision' as appearing by the word 'conveying' of decision by the District Inspector of Schools concerned surely means that a decision after real determination of all the points and all the questions involved thereto. In the case Tirumalachetti Rajaram v. Tirumalachetti Radha Krishnayya Chetty and Ors. , reported in AIR 1961 SC 1795 , a Constitution Bench of Apex Court while interpreting the word 'decision' appearing in Article 13391) of the Constitution of India has clearly held "it means a decision on all points for determination". Further in a subsequent judgment, the Apex Court in the case Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta and Bros. , reported in 1971 (1) SCC 486 held accordingly. ( 18 ) IN the Black's Law Dictionary the word 'decision' means, "a determination arrived at after consideration of facts, and in legal context, law. A popular rather than technical or legal word; a comprehensive term having no fixed, legal meaning. It may be employed as referring to ministerial acts as well as to those that are judicial or of a judicial character". ( 19 ) HENCE, taking into account of word 'decision and its meaning purpose and purport, I am of the view that District Inspector of Schools concerned of a District has full jurisdiction to decide each and every question as to be raised on issue of approval of panel as to be referred to by the Managing Committee of the School. ( 20 ) HENCE, from the very word of 'approval by the District Inspector of Schools concerned it surely speaks of the thing that the District Inspector of Schools will scrutinise, verify the entire matter on merit. ( 21 ) HENCE, when a question of verification of the matter on merit is the nature of power, vested to District Inspector of Schools concerned, in my view the said authority got the power to scrutinise on merit and thereby to take whatever the decision as would be appropriate while adjudicating the same. ( 21 ) HENCE, when a question of verification of the matter on merit is the nature of power, vested to District Inspector of Schools concerned, in my view the said authority got the power to scrutinise on merit and thereby to take whatever the decision as would be appropriate while adjudicating the same. ( 22 ) FURTHERMORE, in the in the Recruitment Procedure of 1989, it is seen that after the word "that Managing Committee would refer the panel for approval", there is a word that District Inspector of Schools will take 'decision'. The word 'decision' also relates to adjudication of the matter by scrutinizing the documents, papers rules etc. Hence, it is clear that District Inspector of Schools concerned cannot be said as a mere Post Office to give a stamp on the action of the Managing Committee. In the recruitment procedure as issued thereafter in the year 1993 as well as of the year 1995 by the Director of School Education, West Bengal relating to the same subject, the point has been further cleared by adding the word only the 'decision' and on deleting word 'approval' from clause 5 (d) of 1989 procedure. The Recruitment Procedure, 1993 is the subsequent recruitment procedure of 1989. The relevant provision is as follows:"6 (A ). . . . . . . . . . . 6 (N) The Selection Committee after preparing the panel on the date of interview shall submit the same to the Managing Committee/ad hoc Committee/administrator with definite recommendation. On being approved by the Managing Committee/ad-hoc Committee after due consideration the panel shall be forwarded to the D. I. S. (SE) with all relevant papers within 15 days from the date of interview. D. I. S. (SE) shall convey his decision ordinarily within one month from the date of receipt of panel. On being approved by the Managing Committee/ad-hoc Committee after due consideration the panel shall be forwarded to the D. I. S. (SE) with all relevant papers within 15 days from the date of interview. D. I. S. (SE) shall convey his decision ordinarily within one month from the date of receipt of panel. " ( 23 ) ON comparison of recruitment procedure, 1989 and Recruitment Procedure, 1993 it is found that while in Clause 5 (d) of Recruitment Procedure, 1989 it is stipulated that Managing Committee after approval of the panel would refer the same to the District Inspector of School 'for approval' and District Inspector of Schools will convey 'his decision' within the stipulated period mentioned therein, the Recruitment Procedure, 1993 stipulates that the Managing Committee after proper recommendation of the panel would refer the same to the District Inspector of Schools and latter authority would convey 'his decision' within the stipulated period. In comparison of the two procedures a remarkable change is noticed namely, in the procedure, 1989 panel would require to be approved by the Managing Committee where as in the Procedure, 1993 the word recommendation has been inserted deleting the word 'approval'. Furthermore, wherein in the procedure, 1989 the word 'reference' of the panel 'for approval' to the District Inspector of Schools concerned to take his decision is mentioned but in Procedure, 1993 such word 'for approval', upon being deleted, the only provision made that District Inspector of Schools concerned would 'convey his decision'. The change of such phraseology of the word is not for any unnecessary reason. In interpreting, the issue, purpose, purport of the word 'for approval' namely whether the word is contoured and limited only on one action 'approval' or not, the subsequent Recruitment Procedure, 1993 can be looked into. It is now a settled legal proposition on the interpretation of statute that the subsequent legislation and/or the statute would be looked into in interpreting the earlier statute in the event of any ambiguity in the matter. By adding the two words with different connotation and meaning namely for approval and decision in the Procedure, 1989, in my view there was some ambiguity about the power and jurisdiction and hence such ambiguity was resolved by the concerned Authority Director of School Education by modifying the word 'for approval' in the subsequent procedure, 1993. By adding the two words with different connotation and meaning namely for approval and decision in the Procedure, 1989, in my view there was some ambiguity about the power and jurisdiction and hence such ambiguity was resolved by the concerned Authority Director of School Education by modifying the word 'for approval' in the subsequent procedure, 1993. In the subsequent Recruitment Procedure, 1993 the only word 'decision has been kept and such word 'decision' has a wide meaning and not contoured by any limitation. In my view, by the later Procedure, 1993 the doubt even if any was there about the limitation of the power of District Inspector of Schools concerned, was cleared by deleting the word 'for approval'. Hence to decide the power, jurisdiction of the authority of District Inspector of Schools concerned relating to a panel namely power to cancel, modify, change and vary and/or to give necessary direction, the subsequent Recruitment Procedure of 1993 will come to an aid. It has been decided in the decision Attorney General v. Clarkson, reported in (1900)1 Queens Bench 156 to this effect 'for legislature in one act has used language which is ambiguous and in a subsequent act has used language which proceeds upon the hypothesis that a particular interpretation is to be placed upon the earlier act, Judges have no choice but to read the two acts together and to say that legislature have acted as their own interpreters of earlier act". Furthermore, our Apex Court also in several decisions has settled the legal proposition that the later act to be considered for interpretation of the earlier one to resolve ambiguity and/or any doubt. In the judgment Sone Valley Port Land Cement Company Limited v. The General Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. , reported in 1976 (3) SCC 852 in paragraph 9, it has been clearly spelt out that latter act which clears the doubt to be considered to interpret the earlier one. In the judgment Sone Valley Port Land Cement Company Limited v. The General Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. , reported in 1976 (3) SCC 852 in paragraph 9, it has been clearly spelt out that latter act which clears the doubt to be considered to interpret the earlier one. Furthermore, applying the 'parliamentary Exposition Theory' in the ease Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, reported in 1969 (1) SCC 555 in para 7, the same proposition of law has been considered relying the following passage of the case Cape Brandy Syndicate v. I. R. C. , reported in (1921)2 KB 403 where Lord Sterndale M. R. said "i think it is clearly established in Attorney-General v. Clarkson that subsequent legislation may be looked at in order to see the proper construction to be put upon an earlier Act where that earlier Act is ambiguous. I quite agree that subsequent legislation if it proceeded on an erroneous construction of previous legislation cannot alter that previous legislation; but if there be any ambiguity in the earlier legislation, then the subsequent legislation may fix the proper interpretation which is to be put upon the earlier Act". Hence considering he aforesaid legal theory on interpretation of statute, which is applicable in the instant case, the Recruitment Procedure, 1989 to be looked into on the angle and reflection of subsequent Procedure of 1993. Considering that aspect of the matter besides the point as discussed later on, I am of the view that District Inspector of Schools concerned even under Recruitment Procedure, 1989 had the power, jurisdiction to take all actions and measures namely approval, disapproval, modification, direction and other necessary instructions on issue of the panel in question. ( 24 ) ON scrutiny of the entire Recruitment Procedure it is clear that under clause (1) of the said Procedure, it is clearly provided that appointment of teaching and non-teaching employees will be made only on the prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools (SE) of the respective District. Further under clause 2a of the said Recruitment Procedure of 1989 and subsequent procedures, it is mentioned that the Managing Committee would first enquire the names from the office of District Inspector of Schools concerned to appoint the approved surplus staff whose names are listed in same office. Further under clause 2a of the said Recruitment Procedure of 1989 and subsequent procedures, it is mentioned that the Managing Committee would first enquire the names from the office of District Inspector of Schools concerned to appoint the approved surplus staff whose names are listed in same office. Similarly, enquiry was required to be made from the office of the District Inspector of Schools concerned relating to the candidates whose names are enlisted under die-in-harness category and/or physically handicapped. The list of physically handicapped candidates and die-in-harness categories candidates as well as approved surplus staffs are maintained by proper verification by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) of any District. Furthermore, under clause 2b of the said Rule, it is clear that the District Inspector of Schools will prescribe the mode of appointment namely mode of invitation of the names of respective candidates either by inviting such names by the Managing Committee from the concerned Employment Exchange or by advertising in the daily Newspaper. From the aforesaid provision it is clear that the District Inspector of Schools is vested with the right, power and jurisdiction not only on the initial fixation of mode and/or nature of invitation of the candidates but upto the final issue of selecting the candidates on scrutiny, verification of the panel as would be prepared by the selection Committee and approved by the Managing Committee of the School. Hence, the entire recruitment procedure is a complete code and/or direction vesting absolute power and authority to the District Inspector of schools concerned, so far as appointment issue of teaching and non-teaching staffs of Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools of the State of West Bengal, controlled and guided by Management Rules, 1969. ( 25 ) SINCE, under Rule 28 (1) of the Management Rules, 1969, Director of School Education, West Bengal delegated his power to the District Inspector of Schools concerned a sub-delegate the action done by the District Inspector of Schools concerned as a sub-delegatee is nothing but an action done by the principal who delegated such power. In the case of State Orissa and Ors. v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack and Ors. In the case of State Orissa and Ors. v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack and Ors. , reported in AIR 1998 SC 3067 , the Apex Court on relying view of Constitution Bench in Roopchand v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1503 held that a delegate when exercises the power, such action of the delegatee cannot be the subject matter of review and/or revision by the Principal, unless such power is specifically conferred on the basis of principle that order of delegate to be treated, for all intents and purpose, as an order of the principal. In the Recruitment Procedure, 1989, no such power of revision and/or review relating to the action of District Inspector of Schools concerned, so far as his adjudication relating to a panel has been conferred to the Director of School Education, West Bengal. In the Procedure, 1989 under clause 13 though it is provided namely "in regard to interpretation and/or explanation of any term and/or expression, opinion of the Director of School Education is final". But the said cannot be said as conferring the review or revising power to the Director of School Education, West Bengal. The said clause 13 clearly provided the provisions only for interpretation of any term or expression. Revision or review of any decision/action of the District Inspector of Schools concerned cannot be said as interpretation or explanation of any term and/or expression of any terms which are mentioned in the Procedure, 1989. Furthermore, there is no such explanation or interpretation by the said Director of School Education on that issue. On the contrary for approval of panel entire power has been delegated to the District Inspector of Schools concerned. ( 26 ) RULE 28 (2) of the Management Rules, 1969 provided the power to the Director of School Education to decide those questions relating to appointment or extension of service as were not approved by the Authorised Officer of Director of School Education. Under Rule 28 (1) clause (i), (ii) and (iii), the cases are relating to approval of appointment or extension of service of a teacher and non-teaching staff. But under the Recruitment Procedure, in clause 5 (d), the approval of a panel and/or taking a decision on such panel, is an action of pre-appointment stage. Under Rule 28 (1) clause (i), (ii) and (iii), the cases are relating to approval of appointment or extension of service of a teacher and non-teaching staff. But under the Recruitment Procedure, in clause 5 (d), the approval of a panel and/or taking a decision on such panel, is an action of pre-appointment stage. Since Rule 28 (2) of the Management Rule, 1969 clearly provides the situation namely approval of appointment or extension of service which are as per statute and Recruitment Procedure, 1989, a subsequent events after approval of the panel by the District Inspector of Schools concerned, surely Rule 28 (2) has no applicability so far as the contention as raised by the learned advocate of the petitioner that the District Inspector of School concerned of a District has no power to disapprove a panel and the contention that in the event of any decision of disapproval of the panel, the same would be referred to Director of School Education. I am sorry to agree with such contention of the learned advocate. Learned advocate has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed by G. R. Bhattacharya, J. in Birendra Pratap Singh v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , an unreported judgment, which is quoted hereinbelow:-"the Court: After hearing the learned advocates of the parties it appears to me that the D. I. of Schools, Secondary Education, Calcutta for reasons stated in the impugned order dated 10. 1. 1994 which is annexure "i" to the writ application has disapproved the proposed of appointment to the First candidate of panel prepared by the Selection Committee and has recast the panel by changing position of the candidates for reasons stated by him in the said order. ( 27 ) WHILE the District Inspector of Schools has the power or authority to disapprove the panel be, it has been rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner, has no power of his own to recast the panel whatever may be the reasons behind such recasting. Under Rule 28 (2) of the Management Rules of the Board of Secondary Education the position seems to be so. Under Rule 28 (2) of the Management Rules of the Board of Secondary Education the position seems to be so. The impugned order or District Inspector is therefore, quashed and the District Inspector of Schools is directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and if the District Inspector finds that he cannot approve the panel prepared by the Managing Committee in that case instead of recasting the panel he will act according to law as provided in Rule 28 (2) of the said Rules, In case of disapproval the District Inspector has to refer it to the Director as provided in the said rules and thereafter, Director shall consider/act in accordance with law. The District Inspector will communicate the matter within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. Since I have passed this order considering the procedural aspects, nothing should be treated as decided on merits and all points are kept open. Accordingly, this application is disposed of without any order as to cost. " ( 28 ) ON careful scrutiny of the said judgment with due respect to G. R. Bhattacharya, J. , I cannot agree on the interpretation of Rule 28 (2) of Management Rules, 1969 as made by His Lordship. ( 29 ) IN my view Rule 28 (2) relates to the situations of post approval of the panel. Approval of panel is an action at pre-appointment stage on recruitment of a teaching and non-teaching staff. Under the Recruitment Procedure of 1989 as well as subsequent Recruitment Procedure, 1993 and 1995, it is clear that after the approval of the panel by the District Inspector of Schools concerned, Managing Committee is entitled to issue appointment letter to the candidate from the said panel and thereafter on joining of candidate in the post, the approval of such appointment is required to be sought for. Hence, Rule 28 (2) of the Management Rule, 1969 would be applicable in the next stage when after the appointment, approval of such appointment would be sought for from the Office of District Inspector of Schools concerned and at that stage if there is any disagreement on issue of approval of appointment by the District Inspector of Schools, surely the matter would be referred to Director of School Education, West Bengal. But in the pre-appointment stage there is no such rules and procedure more particularly the Rule 28 (2) of the Management Rules, 1969 would not empower the said District Inspector of Schools concerned to refer the matter when he would not agree with panel as referred to him by the Managing Committee for approval. In this context the word 'appointment' and 'recruitment' also can be taken into consideration to interpret the word 'appointment' mentioned in said Rule 28 (2 ). The appointment and recruitment are not synonymous. All the stages of pre-appointment upto finality of panel by approval of District Inspector of Schools remains in the field of recruitment. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case C. Murugan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in 1981 (2) SLJ 620, where V. Khalid, J. (as His Lordship then was) held in paragraph 17 as follows:"the word 'recruitment' or 'recruited' has a connotation entirely different from the word 'appointment'. It is not necessary to seek the assistance of a dictionary for this purpose. Recruitment signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment, all stages proceeding appointment. The two words cannot be said to mean the same thing. " ( 30 ) CASES Basant Lal Malhotra v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1969 Punjab 178, Man Mohan Kaushib and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1971 Rajasthan 60 were relied upon by the V. Khalid, J. wherein it is held that appointment means actual posting and recruitment means enlistment/empanelment/approval for appointment. Hence, 'approval' of panel by District Inspector of Schools means final enlistment or empanelment and which position remains in the field of pre-appointment stage. Accordingly, I am sorry to agree with the judgment in the case of Birendra Pratap Singh (supra) with due respect to His Lordship and do hold that Rule 28 (2) of Management Rules, 1969 has no applicability till the recruitment process is completed by final empanelment of names of candidates and appointment of a candidate. ( 31 ) SINCE my view is in conflict with the view of other co-ordinate Bench, relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case Sub-Inspector Rooplal and Anr. v. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors. reported in 2000 (1) SCC 644 , paragraph 12 and judgment Shridhar, son of Ram Dular v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and Ors. v. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors. reported in 2000 (1) SCC 644 , paragraph 12 and judgment Shridhar, son of Ram Dular v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and Ors. reported in AI 1990 SC 307, I am sorry to refer the matter for constituting a Larger Bench to adjudicate the point aforesaid, so that point No. (1) accordingly is decided by a Larger Bench to maintain judicial discipline. ( 32 ) THE point No. (b) now is to be decided. Even Upon keeping the point No. (a) open for adjudication by Larger Bench, point No. (b) can be decided. From the document, it is clear that panel dated 3rd March, 1991 wherein the writ petitioner stood first was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools concerned which is clear from his letter dated 25th August, 1992 being annexure R2 at page 16 of affidavit-in-opposition filed by the School Authority. In determining the point No. (a) I have already kept the point open whether under such circumstances when District Inspector of Schools concerned was not inclined to approve the panel, the matter would be referred to the Director of School Education, West Bengal or not. But one point is clear that District Inspector of Schools had the power not to approve the panel. That jurisdiction is not assailed and there is no dispute to that jurisdiction. In the instant case hence, it is clear from documents that panel dated 3rd March, 1991 initially was not approved by decision dated 25. 8. 1992 and also by subsequent decision dated 17th March, 1993 which is appearing at page 19 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The District Inspector of Schools concerned while adjudicating the matter of approval in terms of the order dated 13. 1. 1993 passed by Susanta Chatterjee, J. , also held accordingly and did not approve the panel. By the decision dated 17th March, 1993 the said District Inspector of Schools concerned wanted the rectification of the defects by the Managing Committee of the Schools and at the same time confirmed his view earlier made in the decision dated 25th August, 1992 for fresh interview. Whether District Inspector of Schools concerned can pass the order of fresh interview, the same to be decided by the Larger Bench in view of the reference of the matter under point No. (a ). Whether District Inspector of Schools concerned can pass the order of fresh interview, the same to be decided by the Larger Bench in view of the reference of the matter under point No. (a ). But beside that issue, it is clear that panel dated 3rd March, 1991 was not approved, even by the decision dated 17th March, 1993. By the subsequent letter of the new incumbent holding the post of District Inspector of Schools dated 16th August, 1994 at page 20, it is clear that the said authority also wanted correction or rectification of the defects by the Managing Committee of the School as was under Administrator at the material time. No document has been placed before this Court by the writ petitioner that on the basis of the letter dated 16th August, 1994, the Managing Committee of School and/or administer who was in charge of the management of School, had rectified the defects relating to the panel dated 3rd March, 1991. On the contrary, it is submitted by the School Authority that such was never done by the School Authority and School Authority was inclined to hold a fresh interview and accordingly took steps. Hence, it is clear that the panel dated 3rd March, 1991 was not at all approved by the District Inspector of Schools concerned in terms of the procedure of recruitment and as such the approval order dated 28th March, 1995 by the new incumbent holding the post of District Inspector of Schools concerned was of without jurisdiction. The approval order dated 28th March, 1995 relating the panel dated 3rd March, 1991 as appearing at page 27 of the writ application is accordingly not sustainable since the irregularities and/or defects as pointed out by the predecessor in office of the District Inspector of Schools concerned by his decision dated 17th March, 1993 read with decision dated 25th August, 1992 was not at all rectified or corrected. Furthermore, even the same self District Inspector of Schools concerned who accorded approval of panel on 28th March, 1995, had written a letter on 16th August, 1994 to the Administrator of the School to place the rectified and corrected panel but in absence of such placement of a panel upon rectifying the irregularities and/or the defects as were pointed out earlier relating to the panel dated 3rd March, 1991, the District Inspector of Schools concerned had no power and/or the jurisdiction to accord approval of the panel on 28th March, 1995. Hence, without deciding the point whether fresh interview was valid or legal as it touches the jurisdiction of District Inspector of Schools concerned and such point has been kept open for adjudication for a Larger Bench, this point can be decided that the panel approval order dated 28th March, 1995 relating to the panel dated 3rd March, 1991 is absolutely contrary to the earlier decision as taken about irregularities of the panel and in absence of any modification, correction and rectification of such irregularities, the approval order dated 28th March, 1995 is not sustainable. Hence, the approval order dated 28th March, 1995 cannot be given effect to and same is set aside and quashed. The writ petitioner accordingly has not accrued any right to be appointed in the post in question on the basis of such illegal decision being approval of the panel without further rectification, correction of the irregularities, even if it is assumed that the decision of fresh interview was not justified. ( 33 ) SO far as the point No. (b) is now considered for decision. Since I have already held in point of. (a) that decision to hold a fresh interview by the District Inspector of Schools concerned was justified but at the same time I have referred the matter for a decision by a Larger Bench in view of conflict with the earlier decision of a coordinate Bench of G. R. Bhattacharya, J. the decision about the relief to the added party in the proceeding on the basis of the fresh interview as held, cannot be given. That will be decided on the basis of the decision by the Larger Bench on the question of the jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools concerned but so far as the writ petition is concerned as filed by the petitioner praying relief on the basis of approved panel dated 28th March, 1995, no relief can be granted since I have already held in point No. (b) that such approval order was otherwise bad in law as there was no existence of valid panel dated 3rd March, 1991 on rectification, modification and correction of the irregularities as pointed out earlier by District Inspector of Schools while adjudicating the issue in terms of the Direction of Susanta Chatterjee, J. , in the earlier writ petition, filed by the present writ petitioner. So in absence of any valid panel upon making necessary correction of the irregularities District Inspector of Schools concerned had no power or jurisdiction to review his earlier decision as recruitment procedure has not vested any power to him to review the decision dated 17th March, 1993 appearing at page 19 of the affidavit-in-opposition which is a decision reached by the District Inspector of Schools concerned in adjudicating the matter as per direction of this Court as earlier passed by Susanta Chatterjee, J. Hence, no relief can be granted in favour of the writ petitioner on the basis of the approval order, which has been strongly relied upon. Hence, the prayer A of the writ application namely the writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to act in pursuance of the annexure E namely the approval order dated 28th March, 1995 is rejected. But so far as the prayers B, C and D which relates to issue of holding of second interview that is the fresh interview as per decision dated 25th August, 1992 and its consequences thereof, since depends upon the answer of point No. (a), which has been referred to the Larger Bench for adjudication, those prayers are not decided accordingly and those would be subject to the decision of the Larger Bench. Hence, writ application is partly dismissed upon keeping the prayers B, C, D open for decision by the Larger Bench. On the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. 2. 3. Hence, writ application is partly dismissed upon keeping the prayers B, C, D open for decision by the Larger Bench. On the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. 2. 3. 2001 later ( 34 ) URGENT certified xerox copy of this judgment be handed over to the learned advocate for the parties on priority basis, if applied for.