JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, J. According to the petitioner, he is a suitable candidate for the purpose of getting service of Assistant Teacher in the concerned school. He is B.Sc.(Hons.) in Mathematics. He is also having M.Sc. in Mathematics as well as B.Ed. He obtained his M.Sc. qualification as well as B.Ed. from one B.N. Mondal University, Bihar. Petitioner's name was duly forwarded by the Employment Exchange along with others suitable candidates. The petitioner duly appeared before the Selection Committee where he produced two sets of mark-sheets including qualification in B.Ed. The Selection Committee prepared a panel of three candidates. The petitioner stood first in that panel. Managing Committee of the school duly accepted the panel and submitted the same before the concerned District Inspector of Schools. However, since the panel was not approved for a considerable period, a writ petition was moved before this High Court when this court was pleased to direct the District Inspector of Schools to approve the panel within a particular period. The panel was duly approved. The appointment letter was given by the school authority. But the concerned District Inspector of Schools had not approved the appointment. 2. A plea has been taken by the authority that although the petitioner has supplied the marks of B.Ed. Examination as 732 but, in fact, he obtained 698 marks, therefore, the petitioner has given a false statement before the Selection Committee for the purpose of having his candidature approved on such Tact which subsequently found untrue. However, his candidature should be cancelled. In an erstwhile writ proceeding, once again such stand was turned down by a Bench of this court and the matter was directed to be placed before the concerned Director of School Education for his consideration. In the present writ petition a challenge has been thrown in respect of such departmental order passed by the concerned Director of School Education. 3. It appears that the said Director of School Education came to a conclusion on the basis of the inference that there cannot be any convincing point to hold that the Selection Committee has awarded marks on the basis of 732 marks instead of the alleged statement that the petitioner had submitted B.Ed. marksheet which was 698 marks. From the above observation, it can be concluded that the petitioner had produced before the Selection Committee his B.Ed. marksheet which was 698 marks. From the above observation, it can be concluded that the petitioner had produced before the Selection Committee his B.Ed. marksheet showing 732 marks and that marksheet was not issued by the University. Therefore, the selection on the basis of unauthenticated marksheet is not valid. The petitioner adopted unfairness. This corrupt attempt disqualifies him for being considered for selection in the post of Assistant Teacher in question. 4. Two important recordings of facts are very important for the purpose of due consideration of the matter by the Director of School Education. Firstly, what is the benefit of the petitioner in supplying the mark-sheet having scored 732 marks when he can achieve goal even upon having 698 marks? Secondly, how the marks of 732 can be carried for the purpose of having interview on 23rd July, 1997 when result was published on 28th September, 1997? Therefore, veracity of these two evidences can give birth of a genuinity or falsity. If, upon calling the concerned Controller of Examinations of the University it is established beyond doubt that, the petitioner's examination was held prior to the interview when he received an informal information and proceed for interview on the strength of such qualification, then there is no scope of disbelieving his statement. There is a reason to think in this way. The name of the petitioner was forwarded by the Employment Exchange having criteria of qualification for the post on the other hand, if it appears that this marks of educational qualification of B.Ed. examination has been supplied to the Selection Committee only for the purpose of getting an appointment when the result is yet to be published, then the element of falsity cannot be eliminated. The other aspect of the matter is that the production of all the documents were made by the petitioner duly attested by a Headmaster of a different school excepting the alleged mark-sheet carrying 732 marks. Therefore, whether the petitioner is a victim of the circumstances or whether he is party to fraud or sharp practice, the same also to be considered. It is true to say that the man, in this bad days after having approval of service and getting an appointment cannot be turned down ordinarily. Similarly a wrong message should not go in the field of education that a teacher obtained a service by practising fraud. 5. Mr. It is true to say that the man, in this bad days after having approval of service and getting an appointment cannot be turned down ordinarily. Similarly a wrong message should not go in the field of education that a teacher obtained a service by practising fraud. 5. Mr. Asok Dey, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the petitioner contended before this Court that there is a difference in between "reason to believe" and "reason to Suspect ". If, it is a reason to suspect, one cannot be blamed for suspicion to establish such submission. He relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 1974 SC 348 (Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection Investigation of Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors., along with other matters). He also placed Kerr On the Law of Fraud And Mistake (7th Addition). He said if the motive directly or indirectly causing harm to other it will be treated to be ill motive. But when the number in question either 732 or 698 both are giving to a same result, there is no question of any ill motive harming other. 6. According to me, there are certain causes which give element of facts to pass a mandatory order. Similarly there are causes which have element of consideration. The rest is obvious resultant dismissal. It appears that this cause cannot hit the concence of passing any mandatory order. The features are given above. Therefore, two aspects of the matters either for consideration or for dismissal is apparent. If, I dismiss the writ petition then it will be dismissal upon accepting the view point of the Director of School Education although the same is not cast iron in respect of factual determination. Therefore, the third avenue i.e. for consideration once again is high lighted. Although the Director of School Education has taken lot of pain in recording the various statements but the same has missed the link of giving answer as to whether inference is drawn on "reason to believe" or "reason to suspect". This is also important to note that there was question of causing ill motive to harm to others. Therefore, unless and until these two aspects of the matter appropriately reflected in the impugned order, such order cannot have any legal face value. This is also important to note that there was question of causing ill motive to harm to others. Therefore, unless and until these two aspects of the matter appropriately reflected in the impugned order, such order cannot have any legal face value. It is significant to note that before coming to conclusion the authority concerned must call upon the Controller of Examinations of the University wherefrom the incumbent obtained the B.Ed. degree to supply in writing whether there is any scope of publication of result before the actual date of publication and whether there is any possibility of supplying different numbers prior to the date of actual publication giving appropriate numbers. 7. Thus taking into totality of the matter I am of the view that the authority should reconsider the issue in the light of the judgment and order passed by this court. Therefore, such order stands set aside. The Director of School Education, West Bengal is hereby directed to reconsider this issue afresh in the light of the judgment and the order passed by this court within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order without fail upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing to all the parties and passing a reasoned order in connection thereto. For the purpose of effective adjudication, the writ petition along with annexures as well as the affidavits along with the annexures can also to be treated as part and parcel of the representation. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 8. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Let an urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties within two weeks from the date of putting the requisites. Writ petition disposed of with direction.