JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order of the learned trial judge dated 26th February, 2009 whereby His Lordship has been pleased to allow the prayer of the writ petitioner. 2. THE short fact of the case is as follows:-The writ petitioner (respondent before us) approached this Court with a prayer for a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Managing Committee of Talliguri High School, P. O. Barashalbari, district Coochbehar to allow her to join the post of Assistant Teacher in terms of the recommendation memo, in Annexure-P/1 after completion of the deputation period/b. Ed. course, I. e. after 15th May, 2009 and further direct the Regional School Service Commission to keep the recommendation made in Annexure-P/1 alive till the joining of her, without any hindrance of any concerned. The writ petitioner/respondent is an approved teacher of one school and while serving in that school, she has undergone for B. Ed. Training Course sponsored by the Government under the rules. In course of serving in that school, she applied to the Regional Service Commission for participating in a selection process for appointment as Assistant Teacher in some other school. She was successful in all respect and School Service Commission recommended her name to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher to the said school, namely, Talliguri High School, P. O. Barashalbari, District coochbehar and as per recommendation, the school authority issued letter of appointment. However, on receipt of appointment she informed that she was not in a position to join the school as she had been undergoing B. Ed. Training Course sponsored by the Government. Therefore, she requested to extend the time for joining. The school authority did not extend the time to join till completion of B. Ed. training period. 3. THE contention of the respondent before the learned trial Court was that the school has no jurisdiction or authority to extend the time limit for joining as the relevant rule is mandatory and she is to join within 150 days being maximum time limit. 4. LEARNED trial Judge after having recorded the facts and considering the rival contentions of the parties held that Writ Court has ample power to grant extension of time limit for joining, on peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Mr. 4. LEARNED trial Judge after having recorded the facts and considering the rival contentions of the parties held that Writ Court has ample power to grant extension of time limit for joining, on peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission/appellant contends that the Court has no power to grant any extension of time limit for joining a school on the face of the mandatory provision of the rule. The language of the rule is very clear that after 150 days, under no circumstances, extension can be granted. The Court cannot, usurp in exercise of power, extend the time, which is not vested in it but by a Writ of mandamus only in case of a duty coupled with power, the Court can mandate. In support of his contention he has relied on decision of this Court reported in 1998 (II) CHN 61 (The Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors. v. Adarsh kumar Sedhwrayar and Ors.) and another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1990 (3) SCC 48 (Shainda Hasan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.). 5. SYED Mansur AN, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/ writ petitioner submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case the Court has passed an equitable order and by this order no one is prejudiced. 6. WHEN a school could wait for five months, there is no difficulty to wait for another two mouths. After the writ petitioner had gone for training at the cost of the Government, if she joins the school as per stipulation, she had to abandon the training course in the mid-way and thereby entire cost and expenditure of the Government will be wastage. Accordingly, she made a request for granting extension of period for joining the school. When the learned trial Judge exercised equitable discretion, the appeal Court should not ordinarily interfere with the same unless it appears to be patently illegal, perverse or irrational. 7. HAVING considered the rival contentions of the parties the point which has fallen for consideration is as follows:-Whether the Writ Court has any jurisdiction to extend the time limit for joining, on the face of the statutory provision of law or not. 7. HAVING considered the rival contentions of the parties the point which has fallen for consideration is as follows:-Whether the Writ Court has any jurisdiction to extend the time limit for joining, on the face of the statutory provision of law or not. We, therefore, feel it expedient to set out the relevant rules: "r. 17 Recommendation of candidates for appointment to post of teacher - (1) .......................................................................(3) A recommendation letter shall remain valid for a period of ninety days from the dale of its dispatch through post: provided that the Regional Commission may, if it thinks expedient to extend the validity of the recommendation beyond the period of ninety days for any reasonable cause, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period of validity of such recommendation letter for a further period not exceeding sixty days. (4) The concerned School or Madrasah authority shall, on the basis of the recommendation of the Regional Commission, issue the letter of appointment to the candidate through registered post with acknowledgement due and upon receipt of appointment letter from the concerned school or Madrasah authority the candidate shall join the post within the stipulated period as mentioned in the appointment letter. Provided that if the School or Madrasah authority has any doubt about the vacancy position, it shall intimate the same to the Regional Commission. (5) If. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (a) a candidate refuses to accept his allotment of post during counselling for the post of teacher, or (b) the Regional Commission gets information from any School or Madrasah 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, (c) such a candidate refuses to accept appointment, or (d) on further scrutiny it appears that the candidate has misrepresented the facts. The Regional Commission may do away with his name from the panel and recommend the name of a candidate from the waiting list strictly in order of merit within the validity period of the panel and waiting list. " 8. The Regional Commission may do away with his name from the panel and recommend the name of a candidate from the waiting list strictly in order of merit within the validity period of the panel and waiting list. " 8. IT is, thus, clear from the language of the said rule that the validity of recommendation shall be ordinarily for a period of ninety days but this can be extended upto sixty days. In this case Regional Commission has extended the maximum period. It appears to be clear that the validity of this recommendation cannot be extended for more than sixty days. Therefore, this provision, in our view when it is mentioned in a negative form, is a mandatory one not a directory. It further appears that in view of the provision of sub-rule (4) of Rule 17 the candidate is to join the post within the stipulated period mentioned in the letter of appointment. But such letter of appointment must be issued within the validity period. In spite of receipt of such letter of appointment the petitioner failed rather refused to join on the plea as above. In this respect the learned trial judge has recorded the provision of law. The learned trial Judge held that the writ Court can extend the time. In our view, with respect, when the statutory provision appears to be a mandatory, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction or take the task of legislature which is not permissible. In the public law field the duty of the Court is to uphold the rule of law rather than to denial the provision of law. 9. THE test is whether in ordinary circumstances the time could be extended by the Service Commission or not. If it cannot be done, then Court cannot do it because Court has to do deriving the power of law itself, not otherwise. 10. UNDER such circumstances, we feel that learned trial Judge has exercised discretion which is not permissible under the law for any act of discretion, contrary to law is not judicious but arbitrary. It is true that there may be valid or sound reason for not joining the school within five months and two more months time was asked for to join. It is true that there may be valid or sound reason for not joining the school within five months and two more months time was asked for to join. We are of the view that the provision of law cannot be defeated because of individual or personal cause and interest and such interest must yield to the interest of the public at. large. In this connection the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The Central Board of Secondary Education and Ore. v. Adarsh Kumar sedhwrayar and Ors. , reported in 1998 (II) CHN 61 is very apposite to hold the proposition of law that unless statute permits no ground/howsoever convincing, allow a particular person to defeat the provision of law. 11. IN the case quoted above, on humanitarian ground, a private candidate prayed for an order allowing him to sit for examination under C. B. S. E. contrary to the provision of law, but the appeal Court in this case did not approve of the idea of compassion or sentiment, as against the provision of law. 12. THE Supreme Court decision cited by Mr. Bhattacharyya reported in 1990 (3) SCC 48 (Shainda Hasan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ore.) has held that in absence of power of regularisation, time cannot be extended. We cannot, therefore, endorse the order of the learned trial Judge in the way it was passed. But we find that in the event there is a refusal, some methodology has been provided in the rule itself. If the Commission gets any information from any School or Madrasah or from the D. I of the school or otherwise that a candidate has refused to join for any reason, then Commission may take a decision for doing away his/her name from the panel. In our view, when the Commission has been empowered to take a decision to do away the name, then it has got also the power to retain the name in the panel so that in an extraordinary situation the Commission can re-recommend her name. 13. WE have been told that on receipt of information of refusal by the petitioner, Regional Commission has not done away with her name from the panel. 13. WE have been told that on receipt of information of refusal by the petitioner, Regional Commission has not done away with her name from the panel. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid observation we think now the situation has arisen for the School Service Commission to consider whether her name should be retained in the panel so that she may be re-recommended for any school including the present one. We, therefore, modify the order of the learned trial Judge in the manner as follows:-The Regional Service Commission is directed to take a decision as to whether the petitioner's name should be done away with from the panel or should be retained and if it is decided to retain her name, the School Service commission may re-recommend her name as we feel that refusal of the petitioner is beyond the control and such refusal is not a wilful and deliberate and she has a case to explain. Taking note of the aforesaid predicament of the petitioner, the Commission will give her a hearing and will take decision. Such decision shall be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order and a speaking order shall be passed in the event her name is done away from the panel. Till such decision is taken, the interim order passed by this Court will continue.