Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 205 (CAL)

Balai Chand Jana v. State of West Bengal

2001-04-12

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay

body2001
JUDGMENT Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. Petitioner herein challenged the validity and/or legality of the appointment of one Shri Prabhat Kumar Bhattacharjee, respondent No.11 in the present petition, in the post of assistant teacher in Rambhadrapur Junior High School, Midnapore and also approval of such appointment by the District Inspector of Schools ignoring the specific objection raised by the petitioner in this regard. While challenging the aforesaid appointment as well as the approval of the appointment of the said respondent No.11, petitioner questioned the validity and/or legality of the selection process and particularly the action of the school authorities as well as of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore in the matter of filling up the vacant post of teaching staff in the said school by selecting and appointing the respondent No. 11. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereinafter. 2. The Director of School Education, West Bengal by Memo, dated 25th March, 1987 sanctioned one additional post of assistant teacher in Rambhadrapur Junior High School in the language group. It was specifically mentioned in the said Memo, by the Director of School Education that the sanctioned post of assistant teacher was meant for language group and the qualification should be B.A. with Physical Education. It was also categorically mentioned in the said Memo that the change of subject teacher in respect of the said sanctioned additional post may not be accorded without permission of the directorate. 3. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore by a Memo, dated 18th January, 1990 accorded prior permission for appointment of an assistant teacher in the school against the newly created additional post by the Director of School Education, West Bengal in terms of Memo, dated 25th March, 1987. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore in the said Memo dated 18th January, 1990 specifically mentioned that the school authority should appoint one B. A. candidate with English as one of the subjects along with P.G.B.T. against the said newly created additional post. The school authorities, however, did not take any step to fill up the said additional post of assistant teacher. 4. The school authorities, however, did not take any step to fill up the said additional post of assistant teacher. 4. However, by a letter dated 4th February, 1993 the school authorities again approached the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore for according fresh permission to fill up the said additional post of assistant teacher created by the Director of School Education in terms of Memo, dated 25th March, 1987. In view of the aforesaid letter dated 4th February, 1993 written on behalf of the school authorities, District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore accorded fresh permission for filling up the post of additional teacher created under sanction Memo, of the Director of School Education dated 25th March, 1987 by issuing the fresh Memo, on 18th February, 1993. In the said Memo, dated 18th February, 1993 District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore though accorded prior permission for appointment of teaching staff in the newly created additional post sanctioned by Director of School Education dated 25th March, 1987 but surprisingly changed the Group/Subject in respect of the said additional post of teaching staff in clear violation of the sanction Memo, dated 25th March, 1987. The Director of School Education though accorded sanction for creating additional post of teaching staff in Language Group but the District Inspector of Schools by the said subsequent Memo, dated 18th February, 1993 converted the said sanctioned post of teaching staff for Language Group to Work/Physical Education Group. Furthermore, by the said Memo, District Inspector of Schools changed the prescribed qualification in respect of the said additional post of teacher in violation of the specific terms as contained in the sanction Memo, dated 25th March, 1987. The Director of School Education specifically prescribed the qualification for the said post of teaching staff as B.A. with Physical Education and mentioned the same categorically in the sanction Memo, dated 25th March, 1987 which was unilaterally changed by the District Inspector of Schools in the Memo, dated 18th February, 1993 wherein the qualification for appointment was prescribed as graduate with Physical Education or equivalent training. 5. The District Inspector of Schools in the said Memo, dated 18th February, 1993, however, specifically mentioned that the permission for appointment of teaching staff had been accorded in view of the sanctioning of additional post by the Director of School Education by Memo, dated 25th March, 1987. 5. The District Inspector of Schools in the said Memo, dated 18th February, 1993, however, specifically mentioned that the permission for appointment of teaching staff had been accorded in view of the sanctioning of additional post by the Director of School Education by Memo, dated 25th March, 1987. Though no reason was furnished by the District Inspector of Schools for unilateral changing of the Group/Subject and prescribed qualification in respect of the said post in violation of the specific term of the sanction Memo, dated 25th March, 1987 issued by the superior authority, viz., Director of School Education. 6. Upon receipt of the aforesaid Memo, dated 18th February, 1993 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore respondent school authorities approached the Employment Exchange, Kharagpur for sponsoring the names of the candidates for filling up the post of assistant teacher in the school. The Employment Exchange authorities sponsored 21 candidates including the petitioner herein. The Employment Exchange authorities, however, did not sponsor the name of respondent No.11. Respondent No.11 thereafter filed a separate writ petition before this Hon'ble Court whereupon a Single Judge of this court by an order dated 2nd April, 1993 directed the school authorities to allow the said respondent No.11 to appear before the Selection Committee for selection of assistant teacher in the post of Physical Education. 7. The Secretary of the school asked the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange as well as the respondent No.11 to appear at the interview before the Selection Committee on 4th August, 1993. Petitioner as well as the respondent No.11 herein appeared at the interview on 4th August, 1993 alongwith other candidates. The Selection Committee thereafter on the same day, i.e., on 4th August, 1993 prepared a panel of three candidates and submitted the same to the managing committee. The managing committee of the school again on that day, i.e., on 4th August, 1993 held a meeting in an unusual haste and considered the panel prepared by the Selection Committee and forwarded the same with necessary recommendation to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore for according necessary approval. On 5th August, 1993 panel was sent by the school authorities to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore alongwith necessary relevant papers and astonishingly the said District Inspector of Schools on that very day i.e. on 5th August, 1993 approved the panel. 8. On 5th August, 1993 panel was sent by the school authorities to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore alongwith necessary relevant papers and astonishingly the said District Inspector of Schools on that very day i.e. on 5th August, 1993 approved the panel. 8. The petitioner herein immediately raised his objection and submitted a written representation to the District inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore on the very next day i.e. on 6th August, 1993 indicating the various irregularities. In the said representation petitioner herein also requested the District Inspector of Schools to conduct an appropriate inquiry into the matter. Thereafter, on 11th August, 1993 the petitioner also made a complaint before the Director of School Education, West Bengal against the approval of the panel by the District Inspector of Schools. 9. The name of the respondent No.11 figured against serial No.1 of the approved panel and the school authorities on 6th August, 1993 issued appointment letter to the said respondent No.11 by Registered Post. According to the petitioner, respondent school authorities in an unusual move sent the letter of appointment to the respondent No.11 by a Registered Post from Post Office which is nearest to the place of residence of the respondent No. 11 inspite of sending the same from the Post Office nearer to the school premises. On 7th August, 1993 respondent No. 11 joined the school in the said post of assistant teacher. The District Inspector of Schools by the Memo, dated 24th August, 1993 approved the appointment of the respondent No.11 as teaching staff of the said Rambhadrapur Junior High School without deciding the specific objection raised by the petitioner against the appointment of the respondent No. 11. 10. Challenging the said appointment of the respondent No. 11 as an assistant teacher in the said school and also questioning approval of such appointment by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore petitioner herein filed the present writ petition. The petitioner questioned the validity and/or legality of the entire selection process mid also the action and/or decision of the respondent authorities primarily on the grounds that the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore has varied and/or modified the Subject/Group of the teaching post and also changed the prescribed qualification for the-said post in clear violation of the sanction Memo, dated 25th March, 1987 issued by the Director of School Education who is admittedly the superior authority. According to the petitioner, District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore while according prior permission by the Memo, dated 18th February, 1993 could neither change the Group/Subject in respect of the teaching post nor could change the prescribed qualification as such permission for appointment of teaching staff was granted by the District Inspector of Schools in respect of additional post sanctioned by the Director of School Education by the Memo, dated 25th March, 1987 wherein the Group/Subject of the said teaching post has been specifically mentioned and the qualification has also been prescribed. According to the petitioner, District Inspector of Schools while according permission for appointment of teaching staff on the basis of the sanction Memo, of the superior authority, namely, Director of School Education cannot act in violation and/or deviation of any condition which has been specifically embodied in the said sanctioned post. The petitioner also contended that the District Inspector of Schools acted in an illegal and/or irregular manner by granting permission for appointment of teaching staff upon changing Group/Subject in respect of the said post and also altering the prescribed qualification, which were specifically mentioned in the Memo, dated 25th March, 1987. 11. Mr. Prasanta Mukherjee, learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, further invited the attention of this court in respect of '" the specific condition as has been categorically mentioned in the sanction Memo, dated 25th March, 1987 where the change of subject teacher of the sanctioned additional post was not permitted without obtaining prior permission from the said Director of School Education. 12. The next ground on which the petitioner assailed the action and/or decision of the respondent authorities is the point of undue haste on the part of the respondent authorities in appointing respondent No.11. It was contended by the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities herein acted in an unusual haste in the matter of preparation of the panel and forwarding of the same by the school authorities and approval of the same by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore and also issuance of the letter of appointment to the respondent No. 11 which demonstrate the mala fide in the action of the respondent authorities. According to the petitioner, the undue haste on the part of the respondent authorities in the matter of preparation and approval of the panel and giving appointment to the respondent No.11 proves mala fides on their part and this vitiates the entire process and the same, therefore, is not sustainable in law. 13. Mr. Kashikanta Maitra the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.11 submitted that the managing committee of the school made representation to the Director of School Education for modification of the qualification which was earlier mentioned in the sanction Memo, dated 25th March, 1987 by prescribing the qualification for the said additional post of assistant teacher as graduate with Physical Education in place of B.A. (English) with P.G.B.T. It was contended that such representation for modification of the qualification was submitted by the school authorities in view of the interest of the institution and on account of well being of the students. It was also contended that pursuant to the said representation made by the managing committee of the school, Director of School Education, West Bengal directed the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore to inform about the staff pattern of the school which the said District Inspector of Schools did. Mr. Maitra specifically submitted that the qualification was not modified by the District Inspector of Schools in connivance with the managing committee of the school with the sole object of inducting the respondent No.11 as at the relevant point of time said respondent No. 11 was not at all in the picture. 14. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent No.11 that the managing committee of the school in pursuance of the Memo, dated 18th February, 1993 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore notified the Employment Exchange concerned for sponsoring the names and the Employment Exchange also in response to the request of the school authorities sponsored 20 names out of which 8 candidates were holding B.A. degree with Physical Education, 10 candidates were having B. Sc. degree with Physical Education and the rest two candidates having B. Com. degree with Physical Education (Diploma). Respondent No. 11 was, however, admittedly permitted to appear at the interview before the Selection Committee in view of specific order passed by this Hon'ble Court on a separate writ petition moved by the respondent No. 11 herein. 15. Mr. degree with Physical Education and the rest two candidates having B. Com. degree with Physical Education (Diploma). Respondent No. 11 was, however, admittedly permitted to appear at the interview before the Selection Committee in view of specific order passed by this Hon'ble Court on a separate writ petition moved by the respondent No. 11 herein. 15. Mr. Maitra, the learned senior Counsel of the respondent No.11, submitted that the postponement of the date of interview had no nexus with the candidature of the respondent No.11 and submitted that on earlier occasion also the interview could not be held as the external examiner and the panchayat nominee were absent. 16. According to Mr. Maitra, the submissions of the petitioner herein that the qualification had to be changed in order to induct the respondent No.11 as an assistant teacher in Physical Education Group has no merit as the managing committee of the school in various resolutions of the meetings of the managing committee from 1989 to 1991 suggested the modification of the prescribed qualification for the said post of additional assistant teacher and at that point of time the respondent No.11 was in no any way within the zone of consideration and as such allegation of manoeuvring any authority or body with a view to inducting the respondent No.11 is totally baseless and devoid of merit. 17. Mr. Maitra also submitted that the Director of School Education under the law has delegated the power under Rule 28 of the Management Rules to the District Inspector of Schools concerned and as such the District Inspector of Schools having exercised his power under the rule can under no circumstances be said to have acted unlawfully. 18. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel of the respondent No. 11 that according of sanction and permission are two different things. In sanctioning additional post power is exercised by Director of School Education under the Recruitment Rules, 1989. But the District Inspector of Schools concerned is the proper authority to give prior permission specifying academic and professional qualification. According to Mr. Maitra, in the present case the District Inspector of Schools concerned has exercised power in terms of Recruitment Rules and as such qualification prescribed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore should prevail. 19. But the District Inspector of Schools concerned is the proper authority to give prior permission specifying academic and professional qualification. According to Mr. Maitra, in the present case the District Inspector of Schools concerned has exercised power in terms of Recruitment Rules and as such qualification prescribed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore should prevail. 19. Learned Counsel of the respondent No.11 also submitted that the said respondent No.11 appeared at the interview pursuant to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court which was never challenged in appeal and as such the said order is final and binding and the school authorities had rightly allowed the respondent No.11 to appear at the interview before the Selection Committee in compliance with the specific direction passed by this Hon'ble Court while deciding a separate writ petition filed by the respondent No. 11. Mr. Maitra referred to a decision of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2000 (2) CHN 880 (Laxmikanta Kahar vs. State of West Bengal). 20. According to the learned Counsel of the said respondent, writ petitioner herein had participated in the selection process without raising any objection with regard to the legality and/or validity of the prior permission granted by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore modifying the qualification as was prescribed by the Director of School Education in the sanction Memo, dated 25th March, 1987 and as such the said petitioner cannot challenge the selection afterwards since the petitioner had participated in the selection process without raising any objection. Learned senior Counsel of the respondent No. n referred to and relied upon the decisions reported in 1995 (3) SCC 486 (Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors.) and 1997 (4) SCC 426 (University of Cochin vs. N. S. Kanjoonjamma & Ors.). 21. Mr. Maitra also submitted that since appointment had already been made, the subsequent challenge would suffer from laches. A decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 (3) SCC 320 (J. Ashok Kumar vs. State of A. P. & Ors.) was referred to in this regard. 22. Learned Counsel of the said respondent No. n also submitted that the Writ Court is not sitting in appeal over the selection process and referred to a decision reported in 1995 (II) CHN page 1 (Ash ok Kr. Jana vs. District Inspector of Schools & Ors.). 23. 22. Learned Counsel of the said respondent No. n also submitted that the Writ Court is not sitting in appeal over the selection process and referred to a decision reported in 1995 (II) CHN page 1 (Ash ok Kr. Jana vs. District Inspector of Schools & Ors.). 23. It was also submitted on behalf of the respondent No.11 that the academic and professional qualifications prescribed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore cannot be violated as the said District Inspector of Schools is the only authority under the Rules to prescribe such qualification. Learned Counsel further submitted that the post of a teacher is not sanctioned under the Recruitment Rules while the post is filled up following the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. Learned Counsel of the respondent No.11 contended that in the event District Inspector of Schools prescribes a different academic/professional qualification in deviation from the sanction order in respect of the post then same cannot be questioned. He further submitted that under the Recruitment Rules District Inspector of Schools concerned is the only authority to prescribe academic and professional qualification for the post of a teaching and non-teaching staff of the school and the District Inspector of Schools also specifies such academic and professional qualification while granting prior permission under the Recruitment Rules. 24. Another point argued on behalf of the respondent No.11 is that at the relevant point of time when the additional post was sanctioned by Director of School Education there was no staff pattern for Junior High School and pattern of teaching and non-teaching staff in the Junior High School was mentioned in the Government Order dated 4th August, 1989. The relevant portion of the said Government Order was also referred to by the learned Counsel of the respondent No. 11. Mr. Maitra, learned senior Counsel of the respondent No.11, referring to the said Government Order dated 4th August, 1989 submitted that after the staff pattern was introduced for Junior High School, first of such additional post should go to Physical Education Group and according to respondent No.11, District Inspector of Schools concerned changed the Group and respective post pursuant to and/or on the basis of the aforesaid Government Order dated 4th September, 1989. It was further submitted that the vacancy in question in the said school being the first vacancy after 1989, District Inspector of Schools gave prior permission for appointment of assistant teacher in the Physical Education Group in terms of the guidelines mentioned in the Government Order dated 4th September, 1989. 25. The learned Counsel of the respondent No.11 submitted that at no stage of the selection process, participation of the respondent No.11 in the interview had been challenged: The petitioner participated in the selection process and appeared at the interview in view of sponsoring of the name by the Employment Exchange in terms of the prior permission order granted by the District Inspector of Schools wherein the academic qualification for the post was specifically mentioned as graduate with Physical Education (Diploma). Accordingly, it was contended on behalf of the respondent No.11 that petitioner after knowing fully well that the appointment was in respect of assistant teacher in Physical Education Group had participated in the interview and had taken a chance and since the petitioner simply took a chance he cannot assail the selection of respondent No.11 in the approved panel after the said petitioner failed to secure the first position in the panel which was assigned to the respondent No.11 and the petitioner admittedly secure third position in the approved panel. Mr. Maitra referred to a decision reported in AIR 1954 Born page 202 (Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society vs. State of Bombay) in support of his aforesaid contention. 26. Mr. Maitra further submitted that the petitioner herein couldn't approbate and re-approbate. It is contended that the petitioner cannot take the advantage of his inclusion in the list of sponsored candidates by-the Employment Exchange and having failed in the interview could not turn back and say that the respondent N 0.11 was an outsider and the case of the said respondent No.11 should not be taken into consideration on the ground of the academic qualification which is B. Sc. with Physical Education (Diploma) and not B. A. with English as per sanction Memo, It was also submitted that other candidates who appeared at the interview were not impleaded as respondents and even the second empanelled candidate has also been impleaded. 27. Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 434 at page 435 (Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. 27. Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 434 at page 435 (Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B. S. Mahajan) learned Counsel of the respondent No.11 submitted that the decision of the Selection Committee on assessment of comparative merits of candidates cannot be interfered with by the court. I fail to understand why the aforesaid decision has been referred to as this court never intended to interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee on comparative assessment merits of the candidates. 28. Referring to decision reported in 1997 (2) CLJ, Mr. Maitra submitted that the qualification mentioned in the prior permission order and the sponsoring made by the Employment Exchange setting out the qualification for the post to be filled is binding and furthermore, according to Mr. Maitra, District Inspector of Schools is the competent authority to grant prior permission and Director of School Education is only the sanctioning authority and as such action of the District Inspector of Schools cannot be challenged. 29. Mr. Tridib Kumar Sarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the "State respondents, submitted that an enquiry was conducted pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein and the Enquiry Officer did not find any anomalies. But when Mr. Sarkar was asked to satisfy the court in respect of the authority of the District Inspector of Schools to prescribe a different qualifications for a particular teaching post in violation of the prescribed qualification mentioned in the sanction Memo, issued by the superior authority, namely, Director of School Education Mr. Sarkar fairly conceded that he has no reasonable explanation to offer in this regard and further submitted that the decision of the Director of School Education with regard to the qualification for a particular sanctioned post should prevail. Mr. Sarkar also did not file an affidavit on behalf of the State respondents contradicting the averments made in the writ petition. 30. Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta, learned senior Counsel of the respondent No.3, 'opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner and virtually adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 11. However, one new point was argued by Mr. 30. Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta, learned senior Counsel of the respondent No.3, 'opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner and virtually adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 11. However, one new point was argued by Mr. Sengupta whereby he contended that the Memo, No. 446-SC/G dated 23.3.87 of the Director of School Education became ineffective on the introduction of the subsequent Government Order dated 4th September, 1989 which was circulated by the said Director of School Education for the purpose of maintaining the staff pattern in terms of the said Government Order dated 4.9.89. 31. Mrs. Usha Maity, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4, the Headmaster of the school, supported the claims of the writ petitioner. Mrs. Maity submitted that in terms of the sanction Memo, issued by the Director of School Education dated 25.3.87 the said additional post of teacher in the school was meant for language group and the writ petitioner herein possesses the qualification in terms of the said sanction Memo, dated 25th March, 1987. 32. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties in the light of the decisions placed before me at the time of hearing. The main issue which looms large for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore was empowered to change the prescribed qualification and group in respect of the additional post of teaching staff in deviation of the sanction Memo, issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal while according prior permission for appointment. In other words, whether the group and the qualification specifically prescribed in the sanction Memo, issued by the superior authority i.e. Director of School Education, West Bengal can be altered and/or varied and/or modified by the District Inspector of Schools concerned while acting under the said sanction Memo, issued by the Director of School Education. 33. In the instant case, Director of School Education, West Bengal admittedly sanctioned the additional post of assistant teacher by Memo, No. 446-SE/G dated 25.3.87 wherein one additional post of assistant teacher in language group was sanctioned. The qualification of the said post was mentioned in the sanction Memo, as B.A. with Physical Education. 33. In the instant case, Director of School Education, West Bengal admittedly sanctioned the additional post of assistant teacher by Memo, No. 446-SE/G dated 25.3.87 wherein one additional post of assistant teacher in language group was sanctioned. The qualification of the said post was mentioned in the sanction Memo, as B.A. with Physical Education. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore while according prior permission by Memo, dated 18th February, 1993 prescribed the qualification for the post as graduate instead of B.A. and changed the post from Language Group to Work Education/Physical Education Group though in the said Memo, dated 18.2.93 District Inspector of Schools specifically referred to the Memo, sanctioned by Director of School Education dated 25.3.87 and has also specifically mentioned in the said Memo, that the vacancy occurred in view of the sanctioning of additional post by D.S.E., W.B. by Memo, dated 25.3.87. 34. It cannot be said under any circumstances that the District Inspector of Schools while acting under the aforesaid sanction Memo, dated 25.3.87 issued by the superior authority i.e. Director of School Education, West Bengal was empowered and/or authorised to vary and/or modify the group and/or to prescribe qualification in respect of additional post in deviation to the sanction Memo, dated 25.3.87 issued by the Director of School Education as had been done in the instant case. The Government Order dated 4th September, 1989 has no manner of application in the present case as the said Government Order under no circumstances empowers the District Inspector of. Schools to violate and/or vary and/or modify the specific order/ direction of the Director of School Education in respect of the group and/or the qualification for the post of teaching staff created by the sanction Memo, The aforesaid Government Order is also not applicable as it has been categorically mentioned in the said Government Order dated 4th September, 1989 that one additional post of teacher may be sanctioned for each additional section provided that such additional section has prior approval of the D.S.E., W.E. In the instant case no prior approval of D.S.E., W .B. was obtained before sanctioning the post for Physic Education/Work Education Group by the District Inspector of Schools. As a matter of fact, the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore accorded permission for appointment of teaching staff admittedly in the additional post sanctioned by the D.S.E., W.B. by the Memo, No. 446/2(1)-SE/G dated 25.3.87. As a matter of fact, the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore accorded permission for appointment of teaching staff admittedly in the additional post sanctioned by the D.S.E., W.B. by the Memo, No. 446/2(1)-SE/G dated 25.3.87. 35. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore being subordinate authority could under no circumstances change the group and/or qualification while issuing the permission for appointment against the teaching post which was sanctioned by the superior authority in the sanction Memo, dated 25.3.87 wherein the qualification and/or group was categorically mentioned along with a specific condition that change of subject teacher of the said sanctioned additional post may not be accorded without prior permission from the directorate. The District Inspector of Schools concerned acted in clear violation of specific direction issued by the superior authority which cannot be allowed to sustain. 36. The other important aspect of the matter is the allegation of acting in an unusual haste in the matter of acceptance of the panel prepared by the managing committee and forwarding of the same by the school authorities, approval of the same by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore and also issuance of the letter of appointment to the respondent No. 11. Surprisingly, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents did not choose to deal with the said allegation. Admittedly, interview was held on 4th August, 1993 and the panel was prepared on the same day. The panel prepared by the Selection Committee was forwarded to the managing committee of the school on the same day i.e. on 4th August, 1993. The managing committee also on the same day i.e. on 4th August, 1993 accepted the panel. The said panel was sent to District Inspector of Schools on 5th August, 1993 and most surprisingly, the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore approved the said panel on that very day that is on 5th August, 1993. The entire matter relating to acceptance of the panel and forwarding of the same by the school authorities and approval of the same by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore took place within a period of less than even 48 hours. This is most unusual. The respondent authorities particularly the school authorities and District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore acted in an unusual haste with a jet speed to accommodate the respondent No.11 herein. This is most unusual. The respondent authorities particularly the school authorities and District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore acted in an unusual haste with a jet speed to accommodate the respondent No.11 herein. The managing committee of the' school received the panel prepared by the Selection Committee on the date of interview i.e. on 4th August, 1993 and did not like to waste any further time for accepting the said panel and as such the panel was approved by the managing committee on that very day i.e. on 4th August, 1993. Specific Rules have been provided for convening the meeting of the managing committee in the Management Rules. In terms of Rule 16 of the said Management Rules at least 7 days notice is necessary for convening the meeting of the managing committee. In terms of Rule 19 emergency meeting can be convened, if necessary, but in that event at least 24 hours notice is also required. Apart from that there is no emergency in the situation calling for such a meeting. At least there is no pleading to that effect. In the instant case, holding of the interview, preparation of the panel and acceptance of the same by the managing committee took place on the same day which is not only unusual but also violative of the specific provisions of the Management Rules as the managing committee acted in clear violation of the provisions of Rules 16 and/or 19 & 20 of the Management Rules while accepting the panel prepared by the Selection Committee. The District Inspector of Schools admittedly received the panel from the school authorities on 5th August, 1993 and in an unusual haste' approved the same on the same day i.e. on 5th August, 1993. Furthermore, the District Inspector of Schools inspite of receipt of the representation from the petitioner herein in respect of illegality and/or irregularity of the preparation of the panel approved the appointment of the respondent No.11 without considering the representation of the petitioner herein. The District Inspector of Schools while according permission for appointment of teaching staff illegally modified and/or varied the specific qualification prescribed for appointment by the Director of School Education in the sanction Memo, dated 25.3.87 and also changed the group by converting the additional sanctioned post of teacher for Language Group into Work Education/Physical Education Group. The District Inspector of Schools while according permission for appointment of teaching staff illegally modified and/or varied the specific qualification prescribed for appointment by the Director of School Education in the sanction Memo, dated 25.3.87 and also changed the group by converting the additional sanctioned post of teacher for Language Group into Work Education/Physical Education Group. Thereafter, the said District Inspector of Schools approved the panel in an unusual haste on the very day of receiving the same from the school authorities and that too without deciding the allegations of the petitioner which were specifically mentioned in the representation dated 6th August, 1993. The aforesaid undue haste on the part of the concerned authorities particularly on the part of the managing committee as well as of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore proved the allegations of mala fide. 37. Mr. Maitra, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.11, however, seriously contended that the writ petitioner is estopped by his conduct from challenging the appointment of the respondent No.11 as he has not raised objection against the participation of the respondent No.11 and took advantage of his inclusion in the list of sponsored candidates by the Employment Exchange and having failed in the interview could not turn back and assail the appointment of the respondent on the ground that the respondent No.11 was lacking the prescribed qualification as per the sanctioned Memo, 38. I find no merits in the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of the respondent No.11 as the petitioner couldn't have any prior knowledge in respect of the sanction Memo, of the Director of School Education wherein the qualification and group in respect of the sanctioned post was categorically mentioned. It is the District Inspector of Schools concerned who acted in clear violation of the provisions of the sanction Memo, dated 25.3.87 issued by the superior authority, namely, the Director of School Education. The decisions cited by Mr. Maitra in this regard are not at all applicable in facts of this case. 39. It is the District Inspector of Schools concerned who acted in clear violation of the provisions of the sanction Memo, dated 25.3.87 issued by the superior authority, namely, the Director of School Education. The decisions cited by Mr. Maitra in this regard are not at all applicable in facts of this case. 39. In view of my aforementioned findings, the entire selection process for filling up the additional post of teaching staff in the school in question has been vitiated by illegal and/or unauthorised acts of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore who while according permission for appointment of teaching staff in the school changed the prescribed qualification as mentioned in the sanction Memo, dated 25th March, 1987 and also converted the post from Language Group to Work Education/Physical Education Group. District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore acted contrary to the direction of sanction Memo, dated 25th March, 1987 by ignoring the prohibition regarding unilateral change of subject teacher without obtaining prior permission from the directorate. 40. The undue haste on the part of the school authorities in accepting the panel in violation of the provisions of the Management Rules and forwarding the same in an unusual haste to the District Inspector of Schools and approval of the said panel by District Inspector of Schools also in an unusual haste bring home the allegation of mala fide against the respondents who are keen to rush through the appointment of respondent No.11. 41. I have noticed the helplessness of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sarkar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the District In-spector of Schools fairly submitted that he has no reasonable explanation to offer for defending the actions of the District Inspector of Schools. 42. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore while holding a responsible position has all along acted in an irresponsible manner in the present case and by the aforementioned illegal acts the said District Inspector of Schools has consistently and persistently deprived the petitioner of his right of appointment especially when he was considered the best candidate amongst others having requisite qualifications as per sanction Memo, dated 25.3.87 and appearing at the interview. 43. 43. For the reasons stated above the writ application is allowed as I do not find any merits in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents herein. It appears from the approved panel that the writ petitioner herein was the only candidate who had the prescribed qualification in terms of the sanction Memo, dated 25.3.87 issued by the Director of School Education. 44. Since a considerable time has already been lapsed, it is not desirable to set aside the entire panel and to direct fresh selection particularly when the petitioner raised objection on the very next day of approval of the panel by the District Inspector of Schools and approached this court also in the month of January, 1994. 45. As I have already held that the objections raised by writ petitioner are valid and lawful he couldn't be denied the benefit of the appointment in the post of assistant teacher in the said school as inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the panel prepared by the Selection Committee categorically suggests that the petitioner had been adjudged as the best candidate amongst the candidates having prescribed qualifications in terms of the sanction Memo, dated 25.3.87 as admittedly other two empanelled candidates did not satisfy the eligibility criteria with regard to qualifications mentioned in the said Memo, Dated 25.3.87 issued by the Director of School Education. Since the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per the sanction Memo, dated 25.3.1987 and his name also appeared at the approved panel the school authorities should offer appointment to the petitioner. 46. For the aforementioned reasons, I quash the Memo, dated 18th February, 1993 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore in violation of the Memo, dated 25th March, 1987 issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal being Annexure -C to the writ petition and the order of approval of the panel of candidates by the District Inspector of Schools by Memo, dated 5th August, 1993 being Annexure -H to the writ petition. The letter of appointment issued in favour of the respondent No.11 and approval of appointment of the respondent No.11 by the District ,Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore by Memo, dated 24th August, 1993 being Annexure - J to the writ petition also stand quashed. 47. The letter of appointment issued in favour of the respondent No.11 and approval of appointment of the respondent No.11 by the District ,Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore by Memo, dated 24th August, 1993 being Annexure - J to the writ petition also stand quashed. 47. In view of the interim order passed earlier on this writ petition on 28.2.94 respondent No. 11 cannot claim any right in respect of the teaching post held by him as this Hon'ble Court had already directed in the said interim order dated 28.2.94 that the appointment of the respondent shall abide by the result of this writ application. 48. Accordingly, I direct the school authorities to issue letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner who as the only eligible candidate in the approved panel has satisfied all prescribed qualifications mentioned in the sanction Memo, dated 25.3.1987 issued by the Director of School Education within a period of fortnight from the date of the communication of this order. The school authorities shall also forward the relevant papers and documents to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore within a period of fortnight from the date of joining of the petitioner in the service of the schools seeking approval of the appointment and the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore shall pass necessary order in the matter of approval of the appointment of the petitioner within a period of 7 days thereafter. 49. The writ application is, thus, allowed in the manner indicated above. Interim orders, if any, are also vacated. 50. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. 51. Let the xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied within one week from the date of such application. Later: 52. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned Advocate of the respondent No. 11 prays for stay of the operation of this judgment. I find no reason to grant such stay. Accordingly, prayer for stay is refused. Writ petition allowed with directions.