S. K. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE school authorities of Khejuri Guruprosad Balika Vidyaniketan have come up with this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ petition in short) challenging an order dated March 14, 202 passed by the Additional District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Contai Sub-Division, District: Purba Midnapore whereby the said District Inspector of schools refused to accord approval of the panel submitted by the school authorities for appointment of a Group D staff (Matron) in the school concerned on the finding that there was no margin of at least 20 (twenty) days between the date of posting of the call letters and the date of interview in terms of the guidelines for recruitment of Group D staff in the high schools. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be summarised as under: (A) Due to up-gradation of the said school as Class X high school, a vacancy arose in the post of Group D staff, consequently, the school applied for prior permission for filling up the said post; (B) By Memorandum No. 2403/midnapore dated July 27, 2001 the District Inspector of schools (Secondary Education), Midnapore granted permission for appointment of a non-teaching staff in the school indicating that the post of the said Group D staff (Matron) should be reserved for scheduled caste candidate. The educational qualification prescribed in the said memorandum was that the candidates should pass Class VIII examination from any recognised secondary school; (C) Upon receipt of the said prior permission, the school authorities requested the Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Contai for sponsoring names of twenty candidates. The Employment Officer concerned under memorandum dated August 1, 2001 sponsored the names of twenty candidates for recruitment of a Group D staff (Matron) in the said school; (D) The managing committee of the school in the meeting dated October 5, 2001 constituted a selection committed and fixed November 25, 2001 for the purpose of holding interview; (E) from the last week of October 2001 till the first week of November 2001 there were postal disturbances and during the said period the branch post office and sub-post office in the area did not function normally. In support of their case of postal disturbances, the writ petitioners have annexed a certificate issued by Kunjapore branch post office as annexure 'p-3' to the writ petition. In support of their case of postal disturbances, the writ petitioners have annexed a certificate issued by Kunjapore branch post office as annexure 'p-3' to the writ petition. As a result thereof, although the call letters were prepared and were signed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school on November 2, 2001, those call letters could only be posted under registered post, with acknowledgment due, on November 7, 2001. Twenty candidates were sponsored by the employment exchange and the acknowledgment due cards from nineteen candidates came back and it appears from perusal of the said acknowledgment due cards that the said candidates received the call letters between November 7, 2001 and November 15, 2001. The acknowledgment due card did not come back from only one candidate, namely, Shrimati Bhabani Mondal, but the said candidate duly received the call letter and she appeared in the interview; (F) The interview was held on November 25, 2001 and the selection committee prepared a panel. The panel was duly approved by the Managing Committee and the panel was forwarded to the District Inspector of schools concerned for his approval; (G)by memorandum dated March 14, 2002 the Additional District Inspector of School (Secondary Education), Contai Sub-Division, however, refused to accord approval on the ground that there was violation of paragraph 5 (d) of the guidelines for recruitment of non-teaching staff of non-Government aided schools issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal. The school authorities were directed to hold interview once again maintaining the procedures as laid down in the said guidelines. ( 3 ) PARAGRAPH 5 (d) of the said guidelines runs as under:" (D) The candidates shall be called for interview by Registered postcard or Inland letter with A/d with a margin of at least 20 days between the date of posting and the date of interview. " ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, there was no margin of twenty days between the date of posting of the call letters and the date of interview. In the case in hand, the margin was of 18 (eighteen) days. ( 5 ) MR. Milan Chandra Bhattacharya, learned advocate, appearing in support of the writ petition, argued that the aforesaid order of the Additional District Inspector of Schools was illegal inasmuch as it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that all the candidates received the call letters before the interview. ( 5 ) MR. Milan Chandra Bhattacharya, learned advocate, appearing in support of the writ petition, argued that the aforesaid order of the Additional District Inspector of Schools was illegal inasmuch as it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that all the candidates received the call letters before the interview. It is argued that none of the candidates have come forward alleging any malpractice in the matter. It is submitted that the guidelines, referred to hereinabove, are not mandatory in nature and insignificant violation thereof that too due to postal disturbances should not be any ground to refuse approval of the panel. It is submitted that the direction to hold interview afresh was bad in law. Mr. Bhattacharya in support of his contentions cited the decisions in the cases of Nomita Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Others, reported in 1999 (2) CLJ 21 and Aloke Pramanik v. State of West Bengal and Others, reported in 1996 (1) CLJ 434. ( 6 ) MR. Matior Rahaman Mollah, learned advocate, appearing for the State/respondents did not dispute the factual aspect of the matter, but argued that the District Inspector of Schools rightly refused to approve the panel when admittedly there has been a violation of the guidelines. ( 7 ) ALL the call letters were addressed correctly and were posted under registered post, with acknowledgment due, on November 7, 2001. All the call letters were served on the candidates in sufficient time. The said call letters clearly mentioned the time and place of the interview. No candidate has raised nay objection alleging any prejudice for late posting of the call letters. There has been no willful departure from the terms of the guidelines and the Managing Committee of the school honestly and faithfully performed their duties in substantial particulars. There has been insignificant variance of the requirements of paragraph 5 (d) of the said guidelines. The objection concerning the aforesaid variance, as raised by the Additional District Inspector of Schools, was technical in nature and such departure was an unimportant omission. The school authorities made an honest endeavour in good faith and, therefore, they should be protected against forfeiture for technical inadvertence or trivial variations or omissions in performance. The objection concerning the aforesaid variance, as raised by the Additional District Inspector of Schools, was technical in nature and such departure was an unimportant omission. The school authorities made an honest endeavour in good faith and, therefore, they should be protected against forfeiture for technical inadvertence or trivial variations or omissions in performance. The object of giving notice to the candidates was to enable the candidates to attend the interview and his object was achieved as the call letters were admittedly served on the candidates and it is not the case of the authorities concerned that the call letters were insufficient or that the candidates were unable to attend the interview. The guidelines issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal cannot be considered as mandatory one. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S. K. Sharma reported in AIR 1996 SC 1669 held that in the case of a procedural provision, which was not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the stand point of substantial compliance. The order passed in violation of such a provision can only be set aside where such violation has occasioned prejudice. ( 9 ) THE memorandum issued by the Additional District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Contai Subdivision dated March 14, 2002 cannot be sustained in law and is, accordingly, set aside and the Additional District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Contai Subdivision, the respondent No. 4, is directed to accord approval of the panel submitted by the school authorities for appointment of Group D staff (Matron) in the school within four weeks from the date of communication of this order to him. The writ petition is, thus, allowed without, however, any order as to costs. Office is directed to issue urgent xerox certified copy of this order to the applicants within seven days from the date of putting in the requisites. Petition allowed