Judgment P. S. Datta, J.: 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th of June, 2008 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P. No. 23634 (W) of 2007 whereby the appellant herein, namely the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Western Region (for short, the Commission), represented by its Chairman was directed to recommend the writ petitioner/respondent for her appointment in Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir or any other school in the district of Bankura in the post of Assistant Teacher. 2. The facts are these: The respondent/writ petitioner pursuant to an advertisement issued by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission on 12th of July, 2006 applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in a secondary school. A written test was held on 10th of December, 2006. The writ petitioner received a communication from the said Commission asking her to be present for counselling towards her appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. On 7th of September, 2007 the writ petitioner duly appeared at the counselling and she found school-wise vacancies in a computer screen and she had to select a school, namely Jote Ghanashyam Nilmoni High School, under P.S. Daspur in the district of Paschim Medinipur. The application for appointment to the post of assistant teacher was made in the prescribed form wherein against a requisite column the petitioner had exercised her option in order of preference for appointment in any school in the district of Bankura which falls within the western region comprising the districts of Bankura, Purulia, Paschim Medinipur and Purba Medinipur. As she is a resident in the town of Bankura she exercised her preference for any school in that district. However, in the computer screen there was neither any mention of the district nor any particulars of the distance from the residence of the writ petitioner. Though she had to make a choice out of a few schools displayed on the computer screen it could not be really her choice of the said school because a choice had to be made at the spot. On further enquiry the writ petitioner came to know later that the journey from Bankura to the school of Paschim Medinipur is a journey of 190 km. to be covered by train, by bus, by trekker and then on foot, which was impossible for her to undertake. On further enquiry the writ petitioner came to know later that the journey from Bankura to the school of Paschim Medinipur is a journey of 190 km. to be covered by train, by bus, by trekker and then on foot, which was impossible for her to undertake. The Commission did not give any importance to her option, which she had exercised pursuant to the advertisement dated 12th July 2006. However, on 21st September, 2007 the petitioner's name was recommended for appointment at Jote Ghanashyam Nilmoni High School. The petitioner on 26th September, 2007 submitted a representation explaining her difficulties with request for her appointment in any school in the district of Bankura in order that she could look after her family. The Commission by a communication No. 1598 dated 3rd October 2007 rejected the representation on the ground that it was devoid of any merit. As a corollary thereto the petitioner received appointment letter for the school of Paschim Medinipur on 11th October, 2007. The appointment letter was issued on 5th October, 2007 following rejection of her representation on 3rd October, 2007. Due to unfortunate circumstance and conditions unfavourable to her she could not proceed to Jote Ghanashyam Nilmoni High School to join there. Accordingly, prayer was made in the writ petition for a direction upon the Commission for recommendation of her name in any school in the district of Bankura. After recommendation of the petitioner in the high school under Daspur PS in the district of Paschim Medinipur the petitioner came to learn that there had been vacancy in Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir in Bankura district. 3. The writ petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit drawing the attention of the Court to the fact that the said Commission had earlier recommended the name of one Pinki Dutta as assistant teacher in Sanskrit (Pass) for Tiluri Kripamayee High School in OBC category, but the said Pinki Dutta did not join the said school and the Secretary of the Commission changed her appointment to a different school within the district of Bankura under PS Bankura where she had joined as assistant teacher on the strength of subsequent recommendation. Therefore, recommendation in a particular school, according to the writ petitioner, cannot be said to be final. 4. Therefore, recommendation in a particular school, according to the writ petitioner, cannot be said to be final. 4. The Commission in the affidavit-in-opposition contended as follows: The West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 and the Rules framed thereunder govern the matters relating to selection and appointment of qualified teachers in different schools of West Bengal. The instant selection was called 'Seventh Regional Level Selection Test 2006 for the Western Region comprising four districts as said above. Written test was held on 10th December, 2006, the writ petitioner was selected, she was called to attend counselling when on the computer screen, there was clear display of the name of the schools indicating against each school post office, block, police station, district, location and all material particulars for information of the candidates. In compliance with Rule 12(6) of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2006 published on 6th July, 2006 the Commission prepared a final merit list on the basis of the result of the written examination and personality test and on the basis of the reported final vacancies medium wise, category-wise and gender-wise. The petitioner secured a combined rank of 539 and in the counselling she as allowed to select school against available vacancies in schools displayed on the computer screen and she selected Jote Ghanashyam Nilmoni High School without any objection to her appointment in that school. Subsequently, she requested the Commission for recommendation in some other school which was not permissible because there is no provision in the Rules whereby a candidate once recommended can be given any further chance of reselection. There was no illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, warranting judicial interdiction in the matter by the Court. As the rank of the petitioner was 539, the empanelled candidates having higher rank in English under OBC category selected schools as per their choice and when the turn of the petitioner came she selected the school under Daspur PS. There was no illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, warranting judicial interdiction in the matter by the Court. As the rank of the petitioner was 539, the empanelled candidates having higher rank in English under OBC category selected schools as per their choice and when the turn of the petitioner came she selected the school under Daspur PS. With regard to vacancy at .Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir it has been said that one Smt. Madhu Sukla Kundu, an empanelled OBC candidate having combined rank of 523 and being higher in rank than the petitioner was recommended for appointment in the said school but Smt. Kundu having failed to join that school, the Commission took steps to recommend another OBC female candidate from the waiting list for her recommendation in that school. As regards change of the school in the case of Pinki Dutta it has been averred that the District Inspector of Schools had inadvertently reported a vacancy for the post of assistant teacher in Sanskrit in Tiluri Kripamayee High School when in fact no such vacancy was available; as a result of which Pinki Dutta had to be shifted to a different school in the district of Bankura. Pinki Dutta's case cannot be compared with the case of the writ petitioner. 5. The Hon'ble Single Judge upon interpretation of the relevant rules and upon consideration of the submissions of the learned Counsels for the parties held that on an erroneous interpretation of the Rules the Commission stuck to the position that the recommendation of the writ petitioner to the Jote Ghanashyam Nilmoni High School was irrevocable and a candidate in the waiting list belonging to the OBC category should get appointment at Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir in place and instead of Smt. Madhu Sukla Kundu, who did not join the said school in spite of being appointed there. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Single Judge directed the Commission to recommend the name of the writ petitioner to Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir or in any school in the district of Bankura and allowed the writ application. 6. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Single Judge directed the Commission to recommend the name of the writ petitioner to Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir or in any school in the district of Bankura and allowed the writ application. 6. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge, the appellant preferred the appeal on the ground that the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to appreciate the contentious issues in proper perspective and exercised the writ jurisdiction, which was not really called for in view of the writ petitioner having selected a school under Daspur PS by making her own choice; the Rules do not permit the change of recommendation of the writ petitioner to any other school once option was exercised. 7. Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing with Mr. Kumaresh Dalal and Mr. Sukanta Patra, learned Advocates, for the appellants argued that factually it is wrong to suggest that at the time of counselling the petitioner was not informed of the geography of the school. The vacancies were displayed medium-wise, category-wise and gender-wise. Once such selection was made by the writ petitioner there was no question of revising recommendation and the process of counselling is really a process of selection of school by the candidates themselves out of their own choice. The candidates were called to the computer screen in order of merit. The candidates higher in rank than the writ petitioner had wider scope of selection and as the process of counselling and selection proceeds from one candidate to the other in order of merit, the scope of selection of school of the candidates lower in merit would naturally be restricted and the list of schools thereby displayed in the screen would get shortened. When the turn of the petitioner came, no vacancy was found available in any school in the district of Bankura and the petitioner having seen the position of the schools in the computer screen found that the school suitable to her was available in Daspur in the district of Paschim Medinipur. Therefore, it cannot be argued that any amount of discretion, arbitrariness was meted out to the writ petitioner by recommending her name to the school she herself selected. The Rules do not permit reopening of a case and in order to gain unjust enrichment the petitioner filed the instant writ application. Therefore, it cannot be argued that any amount of discretion, arbitrariness was meted out to the writ petitioner by recommending her name to the school she herself selected. The Rules do not permit reopening of a case and in order to gain unjust enrichment the petitioner filed the instant writ application. The Hon'ble Single Judge was legally erroneous in directing the Commission for recommendation of the petitioner to Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir, which could legitimately go to a candidate in the waiting list after exhaustion of the final merit list. After the recommendation was made of the writ petitioner following her selection of the school concerned the Commission became functus officio and had no authority to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner. Mr. Chakraborty in support of his argument placed reliance upon a decision in Chairman, West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. vs. Saswati Pramanik & Ors., reported in 2007(2) CL.J 301 , wherein it has been held that nobody can claim a place of posting as a matter of right; and the authority empowered to give appointment is within the jurisdiction to place a candidate where vacancy is available. Another decision in Jitender Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2007(8) Supreme 480 , has been cited by Mr. Chakraborty to substantiate his submission that in the matter of appointment the selectees do not have any legal right of appointment subject to bona fide action on the part of the state and the superior Court in exercise of judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance of writ unless mala fide or arbitrariness is pleaded and proved. It is argued that in the matter of appointment of the writ petitioner there cannot be any question of exercise of arbitrariness or irrational approach or irrational discretion exercised by the Commission which acted in terms of the Rules. 8. Mr. Ashok Dey, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner respondent submitted that the arguments of the appellant are not sustainable either on facts or in law, and the decisions cited by Mr. Chakraborty are completely misplaced. 8. Mr. Ashok Dey, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner respondent submitted that the arguments of the appellant are not sustainable either on facts or in law, and the decisions cited by Mr. Chakraborty are completely misplaced. It has been submitted that it is misnomer to argue that the writ petitioner's choice of school was a meaningful choice because when her turn came to the display board she was shown some schools and instantaneously she had to pick up a school which could not really be of her choice, as a choice had to be made then and there. It has been argued that in the application form there is clear column enabling a candidate to point out his or her preference of place. The concept behind allowing a candidate to point out his of her preference of school or schools within a district is definitely an act of recognition of and appreciation by the authority to consider, the difficulties or conveniences of a candidate; if it was the intention of the authority that a successful candidate had no choice of selection of a school in any district of the region then definitely the Commission should not have afforded an opportunity to the candidates of disclosing their preference in the application form notwithstanding the fact that acceptance by the authority of such preference may not always be possible. Therefore, when the writ petitioner brought it to the notice of the Commission about existence of a vacancy in Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir the Commission should not have unjustly turned down her request. Secondly, by misinterpretation of the rules the appellants argued that a candidate below the rank of the writ petitioner and whose name does not figure in the final merit list and whose name simply appears in the waiting list should get preference over the writ petitioner whose rank was higher than the proposed candidate in the said waiting list. It has been argued that though Pinki Dutta's case may not be similar to the case of the writ petitioner it, at least, establishes the fact that the recommendation once made is not irrevocable or inviolable because Pinki Dutta's recommendation in Tiluri Kripamayee High School was withdrawn or had to be withdrawn under circumstances as argued by the appellant and she was recommended in a different school by reconsideration of the earlier recommendation. 9. 9. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties the pertinent question that has surfaced in appeal is whether the relevant rules lay down any absolute proposition that a candidate, who is offered a vacancy in a school not of her choice or preference cannot be offered a different vacancy when such a vacancy occurs or exists; or in other words, whether the relevant rules foreclose the power of the authority to review recommendation of a candidate in the matter of appointment to another school in lieu of the school where recommendation was first made. The instant case is not a case of appointment of a candidate in Government service in which case a candidate does not have any scope of choice of being posted at a particular place as the job of a Government servant is transferable from place to place during the tenure of service. It is a case of appointment of an assistant teacher in a non-government school, which is aided by grant-in-aid by the Government of West Bengal where ordinarily there is no scope of transfer of a teacher from one school to another since all the schools are non Government aided schools and the power of appointment does not rest with the Commission. It is the Managing Committee of the school concerned, which can alone issue order of appointment on the basis of recommendation of the Commission. The function of the Commission is to recommend a candidate to a school. The question, therefore, is whether in exigencies of circumstances such recommendation once made is revocable or not. Unquestionably, in the application form the intending candidates were given opportunity to note down their preference of school. Obviously the job being not the job of Government servant, a candidate would normally prefer a school, which would be suitable to him or her, and suitability is a subjective consideration of a candidate depending on the place of residence of the candidate vis-a-vis the location of the school and other factors. Obviously the job being not the job of Government servant, a candidate would normally prefer a school, which would be suitable to him or her, and suitability is a subjective consideration of a candidate depending on the place of residence of the candidate vis-a-vis the location of the school and other factors. Though it could not be denied that the Commission have no compulsion to accept preference given by a candidate in each and every case or invariably in all cases, the rationale behind facilitating the scope of disclosure of preference is to consider, as far as possible, the preference given by candidate and affording this opportunity to make preference is undoubtedly recognition of the circumstances and situations a candidate is beset with. Therefore, there cannot be any objection to placement of a candidate in a particular school of his or her choice provided a vacancy is there in that school and the rules governing the situation do not put any embargo upon the authority concerned to accept such preference. In course of argument it did not really come out as a proposition of law through interpretation of the relevant rules that a candidate once recommended to a school can never be subsequently recommended to another school provided he or she has not joined the former' school. The concept of counselling of course cannot be said to unlawful because, as the submission goes for the appellant, candidates are called in order of merit and when a candidate selects a school the name of that school is wiped out and is not available for the next candidate. But it cannot be argued that the choice of the writ petitioner for the school under Daspur PS was of her own choice and irreversible for all time to come. Though the writ petitioner selected the school under Dasupr PS it cannot be said to be a meaningful selection because, as Mr. Dey has rightly submitted, the writ petitioner had no scope of selection of school in term of preference indicated by her in the application form. The writ petitioner had no other option than under compelling necessity to accept the school under Daspur PS which, as not disputed, is a journey of 190 km., mostly by train, then by bus, then by trekker and then on foot of 1 km. 10. The writ petitioner had no other option than under compelling necessity to accept the school under Daspur PS which, as not disputed, is a journey of 190 km., mostly by train, then by bus, then by trekker and then on foot of 1 km. 10. Sub-rule (4) of West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2006 has been given emphasis by the learned Counsel for the appellants, but in our opinion there has to be a harmonious construction of Rule 16 with six sub-rules in their entirety so as to examine whether the Rules leave any scope for recommendation in the case of the writ petitioner in order to facilitate her appointment in Mejia Sukanta Smiriti Vidyamandir on any other school in the district of Bankura. We reproduce the Rule 16 as follows: "16. Recommendation of candidate for appointment to the post of Teacher.-(1) The Regional Commission shall recommend only one name from the panel for appointment against each vacancy and a copy of the letter recommending the name shall be sent to the candidate as well as the School/Madrasah, where the particular vacancy exists, through Registered Post or Speed Post with Acknowledgement Due. (2) The area-wise preference of the candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher shall be taken into account as far as possible, depending on his/ her position in the panel and availability of requisite vacancy, by the Regional Commission having jurisdiction. (3) The letter of appointment shall be issued to the candidate by the concerned School Authority, where vacancy exists, through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due and upon receipt of appointment letter from the concerned School/Madrasah authority, the candidate shall join the post within the stipulated period as mentioned in the appointment letter, which under extraordinary circumstances may be extended up to a maximum period of ninety days by the concerned Regional Commission. (4) If the Regional Commission gets information from any School/ Madrasah, or from the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), or otherwise, that a candidate recommended for appointment has not accepted the offer of appointment within the stipulated period, or such a candidate refuses to accept appointment or is found ineligible for appointment, the Regional Commission may recommend the name of a candidate from the waiting 'list strictly in order of merit. (5) If a candidate, whose name has been recommended by the Regional Commission for appointment, cannot be appointed to the vacancy, for which he/she was recommended, for the reason that such vacancy ceased to exist, the appropriate authority shall send an information in this regard to the concerned Regional Commission and such Regional Commission may, on receipt of such information, recommend his/her name for any other appropriate vacancy in the post of Assistant Teacher, but for this post of Head Master or Head Mistress or Superintendent, the commended candidate along with the other candidates who applied for such particular post of Head Master or Head Mistress or Superintendent shall be refunded Application Money by the concerned Regional Commission. (6) If the Managing Committee, by whatever name called, or the Ad-hoc Committee or the Administrator, if any, (where there is no Managing Committee) of any School/Madrasah does not appoint the candidate on the recommendation of Regional Commission having jurisdiction, the Regional Commission shall not sent any other name to that School/Madrasah for filling up that vacancy or any other vacancy in future and on receipt of such information of non compliance, the Regional Commission shall recommend his/her name for any other vacancy in any other School/Madrasah and the fact of such non-compliance shall be brought to the notice of the Central Commission, the School Education Department and the Director of Schools Education West Bengal, by the Regional Commission." 11. We find in agreement with the learned Single Judge that to minimize the inconvenience to the candidates applying for post of teachers of schools and to enable them to get appointment to a school of their convenience the Rules incorporate a provision for indicating area-wise preference of the candidates given in the application form itself. But since it is not always possible to comply with the preference of all candidates of a certain region the rules provide that the area-wise preference of the candidate shall be taken into account as far as possible in consideration of his or her position in the merit list, and obviously that of availability of vacancy. Thus, sub rule (2) clearly enjoins that area-wise preference of candidate for the post of assistant teacher shall be taken into account as far as possible depending on the basis of the position in the panel and existence of the requisite vacancy. Thus, sub rule (2) clearly enjoins that area-wise preference of candidate for the post of assistant teacher shall be taken into account as far as possible depending on the basis of the position in the panel and existence of the requisite vacancy. Sub-rule (4) does not really run counter to the sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (4) has been totally misplaced in the situation. The said sub-rule (4) entails that when a candidate recommended for appointment has not accepted the offer of appointment within a stipulated period or relused to accept appointment or is found ineligible for appointment the Commission may recommend the name of a candidate from the waiting list strictly in order of merit. Appointment of a candidate from the waiting list contemplates exhaustion of the merit list. Exhaustion of the merit list is on three counts, namely (i) where a candidate has not accepted the offer of appointment, (ii) refused to accept appointment, or (iii) or is found ineligible for appointment. In the instant case it is strictly neither of the three. Question of a candidate offering appointment from the waiting list does not arise when the merit list has not been exhausted. In the instant case it is not that the respondent refused to accept the appointment. The Rules do not enjoin that once a candidate is recommended to a school from the merit list his or her case cannot be reopened so as to consider his or her inconveniences provided of course a suitable vacancy is available for such appointment in a different school and anybody higher in merit list refuses to accept appointment and anybody lower in merit list has not joined already. The Rules do not lay down any absolute proposition of law that once a recommendation is made from the merit list it is final for all time to come. If the idea behind the counselling through the display screen is to call the candidates in order of merit and if it is submitted that candidates higher in rank than the writ petitioner get wider scope of selection then there is no logic to say that a candidate in the waiting list and who is lower in rank than the writ petitioner should get an opportunity to serve a vacancy, which can be filled up by a candidate in the final merit list in consideration of her preference indicated in the application form. Recommendation from the waiting list would arise only when the final merit list is exhausted. The Rules do not say that once recommendation is made from the merit list to a particular school the same would attain its finality and is not subject to reconsideration particularly when there is a scope given by the Commission to indicate preference of a candidate which in the instant case the petitioner could not make of her own. The Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly observed that in no circumstances a candidate, who ranks lower in the panel be recommended to a school if the vacancy had not been offered to a candidate, who had ranked higher in the panel and had opted for the area wherein the school is located. The interpretation put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellants amounts to a position, which the rules do not approve of. The rules do not prohibit the Commission from recommending the petitioner to another school when a vacancy is available in the area of the petitioner's choice. Truly speaking, sub-rule (4) enables the Commission to recommend the name of a candidate from the waiting list in order of merit only when there is no candidate left out for recommendation in a school in order of merit from the merit list. It is, thus, clear that in the circumstances a candidate, who has indicated his or her preference to any particular area cannot be refused recommendation to an available vacancy in that area and a candidate lower in rank than the petitioner or a candidate in the waiting list cannot get precedence over the candidate in the merit list. To do so is to unreasonably ignore his or her preference which was asked of her and which the candidate has duly exercised. When the petitioner drew the attention of the Commission to the existence of the vacancy at Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir there was indeed a vacancy in that school, which was not filled up as yet by joining by any another candidate. It is not a case where prayer for reconsideration was made after all the vacancies available to the candidates in the merit list were filled up. Choice of a school at the time of counselling may not always be a choice in terms of preference given in the application form. It is not a case where prayer for reconsideration was made after all the vacancies available to the candidates in the merit list were filled up. Choice of a school at the time of counselling may not always be a choice in terms of preference given in the application form. The rules themselves provide that area-wise preference shall be taken into account as far as possible depending on a candidate's position in the panel and availability of vacancy. Here in the instant case in consideration of the position of the writ petitioner in the panel she could not be legitimately denied the vacancy in Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir; sub-rule (4) of Rule16 does not really create any bar thereto. It is not a case that a candidate higher in rank than the writ petitioner has been offered subsequently the vacancy at Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir. It is a case where a candidate lower in rank than the writ petitioner and that too from the waiting list was given recommendation in Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir. Thus, construction of sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (4) does not lead to the position that the petitioner's case is closed for all time to come particularly when the vacancy at Mejia Sukanta Smriti Vidyamandir was subsequently available to the petitioner and has not been subsequently offered to another candidate higher in rank than the writ petitioner. Use of discretion in the factual scenario does not militate against the rule; and non-exercise of discretion would amount to refusal to act reasonably, reasonableness being the soul of constitutional jurisprudence. When the authority exercises its discretion mechanically, without weighing the I relevant circumstances, as has happened here, it does not exercise discretion. Reference may be had to the decision in Hindusthan Steels vs. Raj, 1969(3) SCC 513 . The modality of selection through computer display is not the sole one the Rules mandated to be followed. 12. In our considered view, the Hon'ble Single Judge did not commit any illegality in allowing the writ petition. The decision in Jitender Kumar & Ors. vs. State of' Haryana (supra) and the decision in Chairman, West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. (supra) have been rendered in fact situations, which are totally dissimilar to ours. The unreported decision of the Division Bench in Madhumita Majumdar vs. State of' WB in FMA No. 2398/08 does not help the appellant herein. 13. vs. State of' Haryana (supra) and the decision in Chairman, West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. (supra) have been rendered in fact situations, which are totally dissimilar to ours. The unreported decision of the Division Bench in Madhumita Majumdar vs. State of' WB in FMA No. 2398/08 does not help the appellant herein. 13. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal which we dismiss, but in the circumstances without costs. The judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 9th June 2008 is hereby confirmed. Connected application being CAN 6397/08, also, stands disposed of. Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.: I agree. Later on: 14. After the judgment is delivered, Dr. Sutanu Patra, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, prays for stay of operation of the order. 15. We have dismissed the appeal. We do not think that there is any scope to grant stay of our order. 16. The prayer for stay is, therefore, rejected. 17. Xerox certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be made available to the applicant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.