( 1 ) WHILE the first petitioner is a body corporate established under Section 37 of the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, the second petitioner is its chairman at the present moment, the first petitioner is entitled to sue in its own name. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are questioning the actions of the authorities of the directorate of employment, under the labour department of the State Government. They are aggrieved by the decisions of the employment officer-in-charge dated june 7, 2006, the joint director of employment dated March 3rd, 2006, the deputy director of employment dated July 7th, 2006, and of the principal secretary, school education department of the State Government dated April 18th, 2006. By those decisions the authorities concerned informed the petitioners that in response to their requisition for sending names of eligible candidates for the post of primary school teacher the names had been rightly sponsored by the employment officers at the ratio of thirty-five names for one vacancy. ( 3 ) THE petitioners initiated the recruitment process in terms of provisions in the West Bengal Primary School Teachers' Recruitment Rules, 2001 framed under the provisions of the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973. In terms of the provisions in Rule 8 of those rules, in response to requisition made by the first petitioner the employment exchanges were to sponsor names of eligible candidates for the post of primary school teacher at the ratio of ten names for one vacancy. After initiating the recruitment process the petitioners duly put in the requisition with the employment exchanges concerned. They requested the exchanges to sponsor names of eligible candidates at the ratio fixed by the recruitment rules. The notified vacancies were mentioned in the requisition. In response, the employment officers sponsored names of eligible candidates at the ratio of thirty-five names for one vacancy. Questioning the steps taken by the employment officers the petitioners wanted explanations. Consequently the employment officers referred to the above-noted orders in support action taken by them. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners took out the present writ petition. In response, the employment officers sponsored names of eligible candidates at the ratio of thirty-five names for one vacancy. Questioning the steps taken by the employment officers the petitioners wanted explanations. Consequently the employment officers referred to the above-noted orders in support action taken by them. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners took out the present writ petition. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that in view of the specific provisions in the statutory recruitment rules requiring the employment exchanges to sponsor names of eligible candidates at the ratio fixed therein, the employment officers were not empowered to sponsor names of candidates at a three and a half times higher ratio on the basis of guidelines and instructions issued by the principal secretary, the joint director of employment and the other authorities. His contention is that the guidelines and instructions issued by the authorities asking the employment officers to sponsor names of eligible candidates for the post of primary school teacher at the ratio mentioned in them amounted to fraud on statute. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the respondents has said that since only questions of law are involved, his clients have decided to place their case in support of the decisions without filing any opposition. His argument is that in view of provisions in the proviso to Section 6 and Section 10 of the West Bengal Regulation of recruitment in State Government Establishments and Establishments of Public undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Local Authorities act, 1999, the authorities whose actions have been questioned were competent to issue the guidelines and instructions directing the employment officers to sponsor the names of eligible candidates at the ratio of thirty-five names for one vacancy. ( 6 ) HE says that in any case the employment officers were empowered to sponsor the names of the candidates at the ratio of twenty names for each vacancy. He argues that since the 1999 Act, a special statute, is to govern the question of sponsoring names of candidates by the employment exchanges, the authorities committed no wrong by directing the employment officers to sponsor candidates at the ratio of thirty-five names for one vacancy. According to him, the provisions in the 1999 Act will override the provisions of the statutory recruitment rules, in terms whereof the petitioners initiated the recruitment process. ( 7 ) I am unable to agree with Counsel for the respondents. According to him, the provisions in the 1999 Act will override the provisions of the statutory recruitment rules, in terms whereof the petitioners initiated the recruitment process. ( 7 ) I am unable to agree with Counsel for the respondents. The recruitment rules which govern the selection process initiated by the petitioners were made when the provisions in Section 10 of the 1999 Act were in force therefore, I am unable to accept the contention that provisions in Section 10 of the 1999 Act, though a special statute, will override the provisions of the statutory recruitment rules made in the year 2001. To my mind, in the face of the specific statutory provisions in Rule 8 of the recruitment rules which govern the recruitment process, by issuing mere guidelines and instructions the above-noted authorities were not empowered to direct the employment officers to sponsor names of eligible candidates to the petitioners at the ratio of thirty-five names for one vacancy, and not at the ratio of ten names for one vacancy that is provided by provisions in Rule 8. ( 8 ) THE manner, in which the authorities have acted, in my view, has amounted to unauthorized interference with the statutory recruitment rules. The guidelines and instructions issued by them, if are acted upon, will amount to amending the provisions in the recruitment rules. In my opinion, through the process adopted by the authorities the statutory recruitment rules cannot be amended. I therefore hold that the employment officers were not empowered to sponsor names of eligible candidates for the post of primary school teacher (in response to the requisition put in by the petitioners) at the ratio of thirty-five names for one vacancy, they were rather under the obligation to sponsor names at the statutorily fixed ratio of ten names for every notified vacancy. ( 9 ) FOR these reasons, I allow the writ petition and quash the above-noted orders issued by the employment officer-in-charge, the joint director of employment, the deputy director of employment, and the principal secretary of the school education department of the State Government. I order that the employment officers to whom the requisitions were duly put in by the petitioners shall sponsor the names of eligible candidates for the post of primary school teacher at the ratio of ten names for each notified vacancy, as fixed in the statutory recruitment rules of 2001. I order that the employment officers to whom the requisitions were duly put in by the petitioners shall sponsor the names of eligible candidates for the post of primary school teacher at the ratio of ten names for each notified vacancy, as fixed in the statutory recruitment rules of 2001. ( 10 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order for costs in the writ petition. ( 11 ) COPY of this order duly authenticated by AR (C) or ACO shall be supplied to the parties, on usual undertakings.