Judgment : PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the steps taken by the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal against the Kurmail Sonaulla High School and also for approval of the same by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order under appeal. It appears from the records that the school authorities applied to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur for issuance of prior permission in order to fill up the Group-D post of Matron. The said District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur accorded the permission for filling up the said post. The school authorities, thereafter, submitted requisition to the District Employment Exchange for sponsoring the names of the eligible candidates for filling up the said post of Matron. The District Employment Exchange, Balurghat sponsored the names of 20 candidates and an advertisement was also issued by the school authorities inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the said Group-D post of (Matron). The Managing Committee of the School, thereafter, formed a Selection Committee and called the candidates who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and also the candidates who applied in response to the advertisement for an interview. The Selection Committee held the interview and prepared a panel of three candidates on the basis of the said interview. The Managing Committee also approved the panel and submitted the same along with all relevant papers to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur for his approval on 13th January, 2010. The respondent no. 1 herein filed the writ petition being W.P. No. 899 (W) of 2010 on 14th January, 2010 which was finally disposed of by the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge on 12th May, 2010. In the said writ petition it was alleged that at the end of the interview respondent no.1/writ petitioner was told that she had secured top position in the panel. It has also been alleged by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner that the appellants herein had influenced the members of the Selection Committee to change the original panel by way of manipulation and original score sheets were altered in order to place the respondent no.11 herein at the top of the panel. It has also been alleged by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner that the appellants herein had influenced the members of the Selection Committee to change the original panel by way of manipulation and original score sheets were altered in order to place the respondent no.11 herein at the top of the panel. According to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, appellants herein illegally favoured the respondent no.11 as she was the daughter of a member of the Managing Committee of the said school. The said respondent no.1/writ petitioner also submitted a representation on 11th January, 2010 before the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur for conducting appropriate enquiry in respect of preparation of the panel in question and also prayed for including her name in the first position of the panel after canceling the name of the respondent no.11 herein. From the records we also find that three members of the Managing Committee also submitted a similar representation before the President of the Managing Committee of the concerned school praying for rectification of the panel already prepared for the post of Matron by altering the same upon placing the name of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner herein at the top of the said panel. It also appears from the records that the District Inspector of Schools accorded necessary approval to the said panel on 15th January, 2010. It is not in dispute that the letter of approval of the aforesaid panel was collected on behalf of the school authorities from the office of District Inspector of Schools on the same day i.e. on 15th January, 2010. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said school issued the appointment letter to the first empanelled candidate, Smt. Bisakha Barman, the respondent No. 11 herein and sent the same by registered post on 16th January, 2010. The said Bisakha Barman came to the School with the appointment letter on the same day, i.e., on 16th January, 2010 for joining the service and the school authorities allowed her to join the duty in the post of Matron in the school at about 10.55 A.M. on that very day. From the records we find that the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein was moved before the learned Single Judge on 11th February, 2010 i.e. long after joining of the respondent no.11 in the post of Matron in the said school. From the records we find that the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein was moved before the learned Single Judge on 11th February, 2010 i.e. long after joining of the respondent no.11 in the post of Matron in the said school. The learned Single Judge directed the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur to produce all records relevant to the selection process of Group-D staff (Matron) of the concerned school. The learned Counsel of the State-respondents produced the relevant records before the learned Single Judge on 2nd March, 2010. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the submissions of the respective parties directed the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal to constitute a committee to enquire into the allegations made in the writ petition and file a report. In terms of the said order dated 2nd March, 2010, report was submitted before the learned Single Judge on 28th April, 2010. Upon pursuing the said report the learned Single Judge passed further order on 28th April, 2010 directing the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal to apprise the court as to what action was being contemplated by the Government of West Bengal against the school as well as the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur. Pursuant to the said order, Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal prepared a report and submitted the same before the learned Single Judge on 12th May, 2010 in order to apprise the court about the steps taken against the aforesaid School as well as the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur. Upon further perusing the said report learned Single Judge found that the Government of West Bengal had initiated appropriate action against the said school as well as the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge expressed an opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Government of West Bengal should be concluded at an early date preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of the said order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge also directed the respondent authorities not to fill up the vacancy for the post in question till the show-cause notice to be issued by the Director of the School Education against the Managing Committee of the concerned school is finally adjudicated upon. The learned Single Judge also directed the respondent authorities not to fill up the vacancy for the post in question till the show-cause notice to be issued by the Director of the School Education against the Managing Committee of the concerned school is finally adjudicated upon. In the said order, learned Single Judge further observed that upon completion of the proceedings initiated by the State, if it transpires that the writ petitioner’s contention is correct then the State shall take appropriate steps to see that the writ petitioner is not deprived of what she is otherwise entitled to in law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the learned Single Judge finally disposed of the writ petition by the aforesaid order dated 12th May, 2010. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12th May, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, Secretary and the Headmaster of the concerned school preferred the appeal before this court and also filed an application for stay in connection with the said appeal. Both the appeal and the stay application were taken up for hearing for final disposal. The learned Counsel of the appellants submitted that there was no illegality and/or irregularity in the process of selection and issuance of appointment letter to the first empanelled candidate. Relying on the report of the Deputy Director of School Education (W), West Bengal dated 12th April, 2010, Mrs. Chandrima Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel of the appellants submitted that the panel of eligible candidates was prepared by the Selection Committee as per Recruitment Rules which was duly accepted by the Managing Committee and forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur for according necessary approval. Mrs. Bhattacharyya further submitted that the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur committed no wrong by approving the said panel. Mrs. Bhattacharyya also submitted that the grievances of the writ petitioner are nothing but a desperate attempt of an unsuccessful candidate to upset a valid selection with the help of a section of the members of the Managing Committee of the concerned school. The learned Counsel of the appellants submitted that no document was ever produced before any authority and even before this court wherefrom it can be said that there was any illegality and/or irregularity in the matter of preparation of the panel by the Selection Committee and subsequent approval of the same by the District Inspector of Schools concerned. The learned Counsel of the appellants submitted that no document was ever produced before any authority and even before this court wherefrom it can be said that there was any illegality and/or irregularity in the matter of preparation of the panel by the Selection Committee and subsequent approval of the same by the District Inspector of Schools concerned. Mrs. Bhattacharyya urged before this court that the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal had no occasion to issue show-cause notice for the purpose of instructing the West Board of Secondary Education to withdraw the recognition of the concerned school. Mrs. Bhattacharyya also submitted that the Deputy Director of School Education, West Bengal in his report dated 12th April 2010 only observed that the Managing Committee of the school being very much pro-active issued the appointment letter to the first empanelled candidate, Smt. Bisakha Barman, namely the respondent no.11 herein. Mrs. Bhattacharyya further submitted that even assuming the aforesaid allegations levelled by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner as correct even then the same cannot constitute sufficient grounds for cancellation of the recognition of the concerned school under the statute. The recognition of a school cannot be withdrawn on account of any irregular step taken by the Managing Committee. Mrs. Bhattacharyya also submitted that the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal had acted illegally and exceeded his jurisdiction by instructing the Director of the School Education, West Bengal to issue a show-cause notice to the appellant- Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said school. The learned Counsel of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, however, submitted that the appellants herein joined hands together to oust the said respondent no.1 from the first position of the original panel initially prepared by the Selection Committee and for this purpose manufactured papers and changed the original score sheets of the members of the Selection Committee. Mr. Anami Sikdar, learned Counsel representing the respondent no.1/writ petitioner submitted that undue favour was shown to the said respondent no.11 by the members of the Selection Committee. Mr. Sikdar further submitted that the handwriting of the writ petitioner is far better than the successful candidate, namely the respondent no.11 although the members of the Selection Committee, most unfortunately, ignored the aforesaid factor. Mr. Mr. Sikdar further submitted that the handwriting of the writ petitioner is far better than the successful candidate, namely the respondent no.11 although the members of the Selection Committee, most unfortunately, ignored the aforesaid factor. Mr. Sikdar referred to and relied on a decision of this court in the case of Jadav Chandra Mukhopadhyay vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1998 (II) CHN 121 . The answer papers of handwriting and spelling of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner as well as the successful candidate, namely the respondent no.11 have been annexed with the Stay Application filed by the appellants herein. On examination of the aforesaid answer papers we find that the successful candidate, namely the respondent no.11 has been allotted three marks for handwriting whereas the respondent no.1/writ petitioner has been allotted two marks by the members of the Selection Committee. We also find from the annexed answer papers that while writing the passage for handwriting test, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner committed one spelling mistake which was specifically pointed out by the examiners whereas no spelling mistake was detected in respect of respondent no.11. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the respondent no.1 was unfairly treated by the Selection Committee while assessing the answer papers relating to handwriting. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid decision cited by Mr. Sikdar can be of no assistance to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner. Furthermore, in the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench of this court specifically observed: “21…………………………… It is true that this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review exercises a limited jurisdiction. It can interfere only when the decision of the administrative body suffers from illegality, irrationality or procedural irregularity. It is also true that this Court cannot sit in appeal over decision of the Selection Committee but that does not mean that this Court would shut its eyes despite availability of bare facts on records of the case. It can interfere only when the decision of the administrative body suffers from illegality, irrationality or procedural irregularity. It is also true that this Court cannot sit in appeal over decision of the Selection Committee but that does not mean that this Court would shut its eyes despite availability of bare facts on records of the case. Although this Court would not interfere with the Selection process but we may state that we had verified the hand-writing of the petitioner vis-avis the respondent no.7 appearing in the respective vakalatnama and the affidavits……………..……….” In the present case, also we verified the handwriting of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner vis-à-vis the successful candidate, namely the respondent no.11 herein and we do not find that any injustice has been done to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner. The learned Counsel of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner relying on the findings of the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal also submitted that the appointment of the respondent no.11 was done in undue haste and the Managing Committee of the concerned school being very much pro-active issued the letter of appointment to the first empanelled candidate, namely the respondent no.11 herein. Mr. Sikdar further expressed his surprise referring to the fact that the respondent no.11 received the appointment letter and joined the post on 16th January, 2010 at 10.55 A.M. when the said appointment letter was admittedly sent by registered post on that very day at 8 A.M. The learned Counsel of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner did not refer to and/or rely on any document in order to establish that the said respondent no.1/writ petitioner actually secured top position in the original panel which was allegedly altered subsequently by manipulation in order to show undue favour to the respondent no.11 herein. The learned Counsel of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner also did not disclose the names of the persons who told the said respondent no.1/writ petitioner that she had secured top position in the panel. It is true that three members of the Managing Committee made certain allegations relating to the preparation of the panel in question but no materials were disclosed by the said members of the Managing Committee. It is true that three members of the Managing Committee made certain allegations relating to the preparation of the panel in question but no materials were disclosed by the said members of the Managing Committee. We are astonished to know as to how a minority section of the members of the Managing Committee could make such serious allegations relating to the preparation of the panel without having any access to the records of the selection process. The members of the Selection Committee prepared the panel in question on assessing the candidates and subsequently, no member of the said Selection Committee even alleged that the original score sheets and/or the panel in question have been altered. The vague and bald allegations should be ignored although in the present case, from the report submitted by the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal before the learned Single Judge we find that the District Inspector of Schools concerned considered the representation submitted by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner and accorded the approval to the panel only after verifying all the records and papers submitted by the school authority. The allegations made by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner as well as three members of the Managing Committee before the District Inspector of Schools concerned were vague and devoid of necessary particulars. Therefore, the authorities concerned had no scope to examine those allegations in an appropriate manner. Baseless allegations are often made by interested parties and also on behalf of unsuccessful candidates. Such allegations should be dealt with very cautiously and, in our opinion, no steps should be taken at all on the basis of such vague and baseless allegations made by interested parties when no materials have been disclosed in support of such allegations. The Deputy Director, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal conducted an enquiry into the affairs of the school in connection with the selection and appointment of Group-D post (Matron) and submitted a report which has been annexed with the Stay Application. The report submitted by the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal pursuant to the order dated 28th April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge has also been annexed with the Stay Application. The report submitted by the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal pursuant to the order dated 28th April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge has also been annexed with the Stay Application. The Deputy Director of School Education (W), West Bengal in his report made the following observations: “OBSERVATION In view of the fact, as stated above, it may be observed as follows:- (i) The panel is prepared as per Recruitment Rule vide No. 1594-SE(S) dated 26th December, 2005 and No. 904-SE(S) dated 18th July, 2007. (ii) The then D.I. of Schools (SE) Dakshin Dinajpur is found proactive in according prior permission to fill up the post of ‘Group-D’ (Matron) and also approving the panel as well. The then D.I. of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur had accorded prior permission to the school authority after passing over the ‘cut-of-Date’ for issuance of prior permission for non-teaching posts on 22nd July, 2008 vide School Education Deptt, West Bengal’s Order No. 1333-SE (Law) dated 15th/22nd July, 2008. The then D.I. of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur had issued prior permission towards filling up of the post on 28th July, 2008 vide his office Memo No. 152/A dated 28th July, 2008. (iii) Two complaints were received by the D.I. of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur on 11th January, 2010 against the panel of ‘Group-D’ (Matron). Even then, the then D.I. of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur had approved the panel within two days of receipt without causing any enquiry or investigation to the complaints as lodged by Smt. Latika Barman, the petitioner and others. Since complaint lodged against the panel, the same should have been investigated by the D.I. of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur before taking any decision about the alleged panel. But the then D.I. of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur being proactive, had accorded approval to the panel on 15th January, 2010 without any enquiry or investigation into the allegation. (iv) On the other the Managing Committee of the school is found very much pro-active in issuance of appointment letter to the first candidate, Smt. Bisakha Barman on the very day of approval of panel on 15th January, 2010. (iv) On the other the Managing Committee of the school is found very much pro-active in issuance of appointment letter to the first candidate, Smt. Bisakha Barman on the very day of approval of panel on 15th January, 2010. Smt. Bisakha Barman also joined the post on the very day of 16th January, 2010, just after receipt of appointment letter by Registered Post, as stated by the Head Master of the school………………………………” The Secretary, School Education Department, in his report did not even allege that there was any illegality and/or irregularity in the preparation of panel by the members of the Selection Committee. The alleged irregularities which have been pointed out by the Secretary, School Education Department in his report submitted before the learned Single Judge, are set out hereunder: “2.That in my earlier report submitted on 26.04.2010 before the Hon’ble High Court, I pointed out that:- (a) the Prior Permission for the recruitment to the post in question was accorded beyond the cut off date as per office Circular No. 1333-SE (Law) dated 15.07.2008/22.07.2008; (b) that the approval of panel for the recruitment in question as accorded by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur not valid and void ab initio; and (c) the Managing Committee of School is found very much proactive in issuance of appointment letter to the first empanelled candidate.” Going through the observations of the Director of School Education (W), West Bengal we find that the said Deputy Director in his report specifically observed that the panel in question was prepared as per the Recruitment Rules. The said Deputy Director further observed that the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur was proactive in according prior permission to fill up the post of Group-D (Matron) in the concerned school and also in approving the panel as well. The Secretary, School Education Department, West Bengal, however, pointed out that the prior permission for recruitment to the post in question was accorded beyond the cut off date and the approval of panel for the recruitment in question as accorded by the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur was not valid and void ab initio. The Secretary, School Education Department, West Bengal, however, pointed out that the prior permission for recruitment to the post in question was accorded beyond the cut off date and the approval of panel for the recruitment in question as accorded by the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur was not valid and void ab initio. The respondent no.1/writ petitioner did not raise any issue before the learned Single Judge with regard to the validity of the prior permission granted by the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur for recruitment to the post in question. The learned Counsel of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner also categorically conceded before us that at no point of time, the said respondent no.1/writ petitioner was aggrieved by the prior permission granted by the then District Inspector of Schools for recruitment to the post in question. The learned Counsel of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner at the time of hearing also accepted that there was no illegality in the matter of granting prior permission by the then District Inspector of Schools for recruitment to the post in question. Undisputedly, the post of Group-D (Matron) fell vacant in the concerned school since 1st May, 2000 and prior permission was granted by the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur for the recruitment to the said post in question on 26th July, 2008. The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Nonteaching Staff) Rules, 2009 came into force on 1st January, 2009. The learned Counsel of the appellants submitted that the recruitment to the post in question should be governed by the earlier Recruitment Rules of 2005. In the case of Y. V. Rangaiah & Ors. Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 and subsequently, in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. R. Dayal & Ors reported in (1997) 10 SCC 419 Supreme Court held that the date on which the vacancies arise will be relevant to decide whether the original rules or the subsequent amended rules will govern the selection. The Supreme Court followed the aforesaid decisions again in the case of Arjun Singh Rathore vs. B. N. Chaturvedi & Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 605 . In the case of Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. The Supreme Court followed the aforesaid decisions again in the case of Arjun Singh Rathore vs. B. N. Chaturvedi & Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 605 . In the case of Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. (Supra), Supreme Court held: “9……………………………But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules.” In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. R. Dayal & Ors. (Supra), the Supreme Court held: “8……………………………This court has specifically laid that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not by the amended Rules. Accordingly, this Court had held that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not the amended Rules. As a necessary corollary, the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled in accordance with law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose.” The aforesaid decisions were considered and followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh Rathore vs. B.N. Chaturvedi & Ors. (Supra) and the relevant paragraph from the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder: “6……………………………We are therefore of the opinion that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the enforcement of the Rules of 1998 had to be filled in under the Rules of 1988 and as per the procedure laid down therein…………………” A Division Bench of this court in the case of The Secretary of the Managing Committee, Kalinagar Girls’ High School, Nadia vs. Archana Ghosh (Saha) & Ors. (M.A.T. 592 of 2010 with C.A.N. 4147 of 2010) to which one of us (namely, P. K. Chattopadhayay, J. is a party) following the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court held that the vacancy which arose prior to the commencement of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Amendment) Act, 2008 and the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 should be governed by the earlier Recruitment Rules of 2005 which were in force when the vacancy arose. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of The Secretary of the Managing Committee, Kalinagar Girls’ High School, Nadia (Supra) are set out hereunder: “Since the vacancy in the Group ‘D’ post of Lady Attendant in the concerned school arose on 31st May, 2006 i.e. prior to the commencement of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Amendment) Act, 2008, the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 and the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) (Amendment) Act, 2008, by applying the aforesaid ratio settled by the Supreme Court in Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. (Supra), State of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal & Ors. (Supra) and Arjun Singh Rathore (Supra) the selection in question should be governed by the 2005 Rules which were in force when the said vacancy arose and, therefore, the school authority itself being the selecting authority will fill up the aforesaid Group ‘D’ post of Lady Attendant in the manner laid down in the West Bengal School (Recruitment of Nonteaching Staff) Rules, 2005.” For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur had rightly granted prior permission for recruitment to the post in question under the Recruitment Rules of 2005 and there is no scope to criticise his action in this regard. Therefore, the objections raised by the Deputy Director of School Education (W), West Bengal and subsequently, by the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal criticising the aforesaid action of the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur for granting prior permission for recruitment to the post in question cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same are accordingly quashed. The Deputy Director of School Education (W), West Bengal, however, observed that the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur being proactive had accorded approval to the panel in question without causing any enquiry or investigation to the complaints as lodged by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner and others. The Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal also observed that the approval of the panel by the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur for recruitment to the post in question was not valid and void ab initio. The Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal also observed that the approval of the panel by the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur for recruitment to the post in question was not valid and void ab initio. The Deputy Director of School Education (W), West Bengal specifically observed that the Managing Committee of the school being proactive issued the appointment letter to the respondent no.11 and allowed the said respondent no.11 to join the post on the very same day. The Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal in his report also criticised the action of the Managing Committee for being proactive in issuing the appointment letter to the first empanelled candidate. The learned Counsel of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner submitted that the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur acted in an unseemly and undue haste in approving the panel forwarded by the Managing Committee. The unusual hasty actions of the Managing Committee of the concerned school in issuing the letter of appointment to the respondent no.11 and allowing her to join on the very same day were severely criticised by the learned Counsel of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner. The learned Counsel of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner further submitted that the entire selection process in respect of the post in question in the instant case had been vitiated due to the aforesaid unseemly and unduly hasty actions of the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur and the members of the Managing Committee of the concerned school. Mr. Ekramul Bari, learned Counsel of the successful candidate, however, submitted that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner did not allege malafide and/or bias against any member of the Selection Committee. Mr. Bari further submitted that no document has also been produced by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner in support of her allegation that the original score sheets have been changed subsequently in order to show undue favour to the respondent no.11. Mr. Bari also submitted that the frivolous allegations made by the unsuccessful candidates were rightly ignored by the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur as the same were devoid of any merit. On examination of the records we find that the panel in question was submitted before the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur on 13th January, 2010 and the same was approved on 15th January, 2010. On examination of the records we find that the panel in question was submitted before the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur on 13th January, 2010 and the same was approved on 15th January, 2010. Therefore, it cannot be said that the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur approved the panel in undue haste. The Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal in his report submitted before the learned Single Judge pursuant to the order dated 2nd March, 2010 specifically mentioned that the Assistant Inspector of Schools while representing the then District Inspector of Schools submitted that after considering the allegations as lodged by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner on 11th January, 2010 and upon verifying all the relevant records and papers submitted by the school authorities, approval of the panel was accorded. Paragraph 10 of the said report of the Secretary is set out hereunder: “10. The Assistant Inspector of Schools representing the District Inspector of Schools submitted that the panel in question was in order. He further submitted that it is only after considering the allegation as lodged by the petitioner in her representation on 11.01.2010 and after verifying all records and papers submitted by the School Authority, the approval to the panel was accorded.” Therefore, it cannot be said that the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur accorded approval of the panel in unusual haste without verifying the relevant records and/or considering the objections received from the respondent no.1/writ petitioner. We are not prepared to accept that the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur had acted in unseemly and undue haste for approving the panel in question. The objections raised in this regard by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, Deputy Director of School Education (W), west Bengal and also by the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal cannot be sustained and declared to be valid. However, the appellants herein acted in undue haste in allowing the successful candidate to join the service. The objections raised in this regard by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, Deputy Director of School Education (W), west Bengal and also by the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal cannot be sustained and declared to be valid. However, the appellants herein acted in undue haste in allowing the successful candidate to join the service. There is no dispute that the approved panel was collected from the office of the then District Inspector of Schools by the school authorities on 15th January, 2010 and on the very next day, appointment letter was issued to the first empanelled candidate i.e. respondent No. 11 herein at about 8:30 A.M. The said respondent No. 11 joined the school on the very same day i.e. on 16th January, 2010 at about 10:50 A.M. In the aforesaid circumstances, even if it is assumed that the local postal authority delivered the registered letter on the very same day to the respondent no.11, we are not prepared to accept that the school authorities did not act in undue haste by allowing the respondent no.11 to join the school on the very same day i.e. on 16th January, 2010 at 10.55 A.M. Therefore, in the instant case, we are to decide whether the appointment of the duly selected candidate should be cancelled as the Managing Committee of the concerned school acted in undue haste in allowing the duly selected candidate, namely the respondent no.11 to join the service. Mr. Tarun Roy, learned Senior Counsel of the State-respondents submitted that this court should draw its own conclusion upon considering the following decisions: (1) AIR 1981 SC 2181 [Dr. S.P. Kapoor vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.] (Paragraph 33) (2) AIR 1981 SC 487 [Ajay Hasia etc. vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.] (Paragraph 19) (3) AIR 1985 SC 551 [K. Nagaraj and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.] (Paragraph 13) (4) AIR 1974 SC 555 [E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.] (Paragraphs 92 & 93) (5) (2002) 9 SCC 765 [Joginder Singh and Ors. vs. Roshan Lal & Ors.] (Paragraphs 4 & 5) In the case of K. Nagaraj and Ors. (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “13……………………………The reasonableness of a decision, in any jurisdiction, does not depend upon the time which it takes. vs. Roshan Lal & Ors.] (Paragraphs 4 & 5) In the case of K. Nagaraj and Ors. (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “13……………………………The reasonableness of a decision, in any jurisdiction, does not depend upon the time which it takes. A delayed decision of the executive can also be bad as offending against the provisions of the Constitution and it can be no defence to the charge of unconstitutionality that the decision was taken after the lapse of a long time. Conversely, decisions which are taken promptly cannot be assumed to be bad because they are taken promptly. Every decision has to be examined on its own merits in order to determine whether it is arbitrary and unreasonable………………………………….” In the present case, Managing Committee of the school in an undue haste allowed the duly selected candidate to join the service. We did not find any illegality and or irregularity in the selection process. No document was produced before us to substantiate the allegations levelled by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner. The members of the Selection Committee duly assessed the candidates who participated in the selection process and prepared a panel wherein the name of the respondent no.11 was placed at the top. The vague allegations made by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner regarding alteration of the panel and change of the original scoresheets were also not established either before the Deputy Director of School Education (W), West Bengal or even before the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal. Furthermore, no document was also produced in support of the aforesaid allegations either before the learned Single Judge or even before us. The learned Single Judge never held that the original panel was altered and the original score- sheets were changed in order to show undue favour to the respondent No. 11 herein. On examination of the relevant records and upon hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel of the respective parties we do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the matter of preparation of the panel of successful candidates by the Selection Committee wherein the respondent no.11 was assigned top position. The hasty actions on the part of the school authorities cannot ipso facto make the selection and the appointment of the first empanelled candidate namely, the respondent no.11 herein illegal. The hasty actions on the part of the school authorities cannot ipso facto make the selection and the appointment of the first empanelled candidate namely, the respondent no.11 herein illegal. Under no circumstances, the said action of the Managing Committee can be a proper ground for initiating any step to derecognize the school in question. As we have already approved the steps taken by the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur, there is no scope to take any step hereinafter against the said District Inspector of Schools. Since the respondent no.11 has already joined the school being the first empanelled candidate on the basis of a valid selection, the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur is directed to approve the appointment of the said respondent No. 11 and release the admissible salary and allowances from the date of her joining the said school. With the aforesaid observations and directions, we set aside the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal and the connected Stay Application thus stand allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on usual undertaking. MD. ABDUL GHANI, J. I agree.