Judgment : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J 1. The writ petitioner has been working in Prabhat Kumar College, Contai in the district of Purba Medinipur as a clerk on a temporary basis since the year 2001. This college is affiliated to the Vidyasagar University regulated by Vidyasagar University First Statutes 1983. The dispute in this matter is with regard to filling up the post of a clerk for which a regular vacancy has been declared. Appointment to such a post is guided by Clause 163 of the Vidyasagar University First statutes. 2. The provision relating to appointment to the post of a clerk is referred to in Statute 160(ii)(a). In my own opinion, as per the rules, the said post ought to have been filled up through the process of direct recruitment. In the case of W.P. No. 1349(W) of 2003, Jagabandhu Barman Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. considering a similar rule concerning the North Bengal University, an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court held:- “After hearing the learned Advocate for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials on record I find that in view of the provisions contained in Statutes 3(a)(ii) post of Library Assistant should be filled up by direct recruitment as mentioned in Statute 5 (b). However, Clause (c) of the said Statute 5 creates an embargo over Clause (b). according to such clause (c) while filling up vacancies in the posts referred to in subclause (ii) of Clause (a) of Statue 2 efficient and experienced members of the lower subordinate staff having the requisite qualifications shall get preference over others. Conjoint reading of clause (b) and (e) makes it clear that for the purpose of filling up any post referred to in sub-clause (ii) Clause (a) of Statute 2 an employer must first ascertain whether there is any applicant from the lower subordinate staff of the college having the requisite qualification. If there is any such candidate, appointment should be given from amongst those as in the said clause (c) it is specifically mentioned that they shall get preference over others. In the event, there is no such applicant from the lower subordinate staff in such a situation an employer will be to fill up by direct recruitment by way of sponsorship from the employment exchange.” 3. In the event, there is no such applicant from the lower subordinate staff in such a situation an employer will be to fill up by direct recruitment by way of sponsorship from the employment exchange.” 3. In my order passed in this proceeding on 19 November 2009, I had respectfully disagreed with the view of the Hon’ble Judge expressed in the said judgment as I was of opinion that the said post ought to have been filled up by the process of direct recruitment. In these circumstances, I had referred the matter to His Lordship the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice for appropriate direction, upon formulating the following question: “(i) Whether for the purpose of filling up of a vacant post specified in Statute 160(a)(ii) of the Vidyasagar University First Statues, 1983 at a time the memorandum no. 924-Edn (CS)/10M-10/03 dated 26 November 2007 and 585-Edn (CS)/10M-20/08 dated 9 September 2008 had not become operational, the recruiting authority was required first to ascertain whether there was any efficient and experienced member of the lower subordinate staff having the requisite qualifications, as prescribed in Statute 163(c) and if such lower subordinate staff were found suitable, fill up such vacancy from such lower subordinate staff without following the procedure for direct recruitment or they were required to seek sponsorship from the employment exchange in terms of memorandum no. 830-Edn(CS) dated 31 October 1995, or consider the claims of lower subordinate staff who were efficient and experienced having suitable qualification only if names of such staff were sponsored by the employment exchange?” 4. The matter was referred to an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench answered the reference, holding:- “The college authority is entitled to fill up the permanent post of clerk by the method of direct recruitment and the field of choice shall be from departmental candidates including the candidates as mentioned in Clause [c] as well as the candidates who shall be responding to public advertisement or public notification and candidates sponsored by the employment office. However, while assessing their performances and giving appointment, efficient and experienced members of the lower subordinate staff should be given preference and weightage. Thus, this reference is disposed of.” 5. Now I am to decide the matter in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the said reference. However, while assessing their performances and giving appointment, efficient and experienced members of the lower subordinate staff should be given preference and weightage. Thus, this reference is disposed of.” 5. Now I am to decide the matter in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the said reference. At the initial stage of hearing before me, on behalf of the private respondents, it was urged that in the event the post was to be filled up through a process of open selection, then it was necessary that the vacancy ought to have been advertised in the general media. In my order passed on 19 November 2009, however, I had observed that I ought not to take cognizance of such a complaint on the ground, inter alia, that there was no complaint on that count raised in the proceeding by the private respondents. I had observed in my order passed on 19 November 2009:- “Appearing for the private respondents, Mr. Datta, however, argued that it was incumbent on the recruiting authority to advertise the vacancy in view of different judicial pronouncements mandating such a course. Four authorities were relied upon by him on this count, being the decisions reported in 1996(6) SCC 216 , 1997(9) SCC 527 , 2008(1) SCC 105 and 2008(1) CLJ 912 . All these decisions are uniform on the point that for filling up of posts by public authorities, advertisement in the media is necessary for inviting applications for the post or posts in question from the general public. In the facts of the present case, however, in my opinion, the recruitment process would not be vitiated on the sole ground that no media publicity was given inviting applications from the general public for filling up the said post. I hold so because in this case, it is not the complain of any of the potential candidates that they had no knowledge of the vacancy, as a result of which they could not apply for the post. The respondent nos. 6 & 7 admittedly had the knowledge of the vacancy, and sought to be absorbed therein. They in fact did apply for the post in question, and in their initial applications dated 15 September and 20 September 2006, both of them wanted direct appointment. In their subsequent representation, their prayer was for absorption. The respondent nos. 6 & 7 admittedly had the knowledge of the vacancy, and sought to be absorbed therein. They in fact did apply for the post in question, and in their initial applications dated 15 September and 20 September 2006, both of them wanted direct appointment. In their subsequent representation, their prayer was for absorption. In these circumstances, in the absence of any potential candidate raising a complain that because of lack of publicity he could not apply for the post, I do not think I can take cognizance of the complain of lack of publicity and declare the recruitment process to be invalid at the instance of the respondent nos. 6 & 7. No lis on this count had been raised at any material time by the private respondents and the private respondents also wanted to be directly appointed to the post in question.” 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench, however, while answering the reference opined that the recruitment process should include public advertisement or public notification. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has argued that no public advertisement would be necessary in this case since that issue was not in lis before this Court. He further stressed on the fact that the private respondents wanted to be promoted to the said post and lack of publicity for the vacancy was never their grievance. Such claim was rejected by the Hon’ble Division Bench. His further argument on this point is that the question as to whether there should be public advertisement for the post in question stood already concluded, as my own finding on that issue was not challenged by any of the respondents before an appellate forum. That question was also not referred to the Hon’ble Division Bench according to Mr. Mukhopadhyay. He relied on several authorities in support of his contention that the larger bench constituted to adjudicate on a particular issue has to confine its adjudication to the issue referred to it, and cannot travel beyond such issue [(T.A. Hameed Vs. M. Viswanathan (2008) 3 SCC 243 , Kerala State Science & Technology Museum Vs. Rampal & Co. (2006) 6 SCC 258 , Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samity Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank Pradhikaran & Anr. ( AIR 2003 SC 2302 )]. Relying on another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of City Vs. M. Viswanathan (2008) 3 SCC 243 , Kerala State Science & Technology Museum Vs. Rampal & Co. (2006) 6 SCC 258 , Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samity Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank Pradhikaran & Anr. ( AIR 2003 SC 2302 )]. Relying on another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of City Vs. Shivshanker Gaurishanker Mehta & Anr. reported in (1998) 9 SCC 197 , he submitted that I ought to ignore the observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench on the aspect of publication of advertisement, and decide the matter on the question as to whether the post in question was purely a promotional post or not. 7. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the State respondents on the other hand submitted that so far as direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench is concerned, such direction is binding on me. On the question of my own jurisdiction to decide the question without following the observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench as regards the necessity to advertise the vacancy in the general media, he argued that such a course would not be permissible. His submission was that in a precedent based system, I am bound the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench. In this regard, he relied on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Shramik Sangh & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 448 on this point. In this judgment, it has been held:- “We are of the view that a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court binds a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court and that judicial discipline obliges them to follow it, regardless of their doubts about its correctness. At the most, they could have ordered that the matter be heard by a Bench of three learned Judges.” He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pabitra Mohan Dash & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa ( 2001 2 SCC 480 in support of his submission that it is permissible for a larger bench constituted to adjudicate on a particular issue to re-examine the entire matter. 8. I have thus been invited in this proceeding, to test the legality of certain observations made by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Vs. State of Orissa ( 2001 2 SCC 480 in support of his submission that it is permissible for a larger bench constituted to adjudicate on a particular issue to re-examine the entire matter. 8. I have thus been invited in this proceeding, to test the legality of certain observations made by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The ground on which I have been invited to do so is that the Hon’ble Division Bench was not hearing the mater as a regular Appellate Bench, but as a larger bench to which a specific dispute was referred. It has been argued that if a Division Bench is constituted for such purpose, then decision of the Bench on any point beyond the issue or issues referred to it would not be binding on me. 9. In my opinion, however, it would be breach of judicial propriety on my part if I proceed to examine the correctness of a decision of an Hon’ble bench comprising of two judges. Since this is a bench of superior strength, if I embark upon an examination as to whether it was proper for the Hon’ble Division Bench to pass a direction for issuing public advertisement for the purpose of recruitment to the post in question, in the present proceeding I shall, in substance, be testing the correctness of an order of a bench of superior strength. I do not think the mere fact that the larger bench was constituted for answering a reference would alter the fundamental character of the division bench as a bench of superior strength, whose finding would be binding on me. Thus it would be inappropriate on my part to ascertain as to whether the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench for making recruitment after issuance of public advertisement was proper or not. In view of this, I do not consider it necessary to examine the ratio of the authorities cited by Mr. Mukhopadhyay and Mr. Bhattacharjee. If I do so, that would constitute an enquiry into the question of correctness of a decision rendered by a bench comprising of two judges of this Court. 10. Under these circumstances, I do not find any further direction is called for in this writ petition. Let the post in question be filled up in the manner prescribed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 10. Under these circumstances, I do not find any further direction is called for in this writ petition. Let the post in question be filled up in the manner prescribed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. In the event fresh selection process is initiated, then the petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the process containing the age bar as he is working in the college for a considerable length of time. His experience for the post may also be considered while examining his candidature. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms. 11. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.