JUDGMENT 1. NONE entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 6 before this Court. 2. IT is submitted by Mr. Achinta Banerjee that he has already returned back the brief to his client, the respondent No.5. He prays for leave from retiring his case. Such prayer stands allowed. Let a true copy of the relevant records produced before this Court on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1-3 be kept on records. 3. THIS writ application is directed against the decision of the respondent No. 1 to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of "Lecturer" in Sripat Singh College, District Murshidabad. 4. THE facts of this case in a nutshell are as follows. The petitioner participated in the selection process for preparation of the panel of the selected candidates for appointment of "Lecturer" in Political Science under the general category in different colleges within the State of West Bengal in the year 2008. The above selection process was conducted by the respondent No.1 inviting applications from the eligible candidates by an Advertisement No. 1/2007 published in the "Ananda Bazar Patrika", a daily vernacular, dated March 20, 2007. 5. THE petitioner opted for Kalyani University as her choice for University Zone. On the basis of performances of the eligible candidates a panel of 11 selected candidates in Political Science under general category for Kalyani University Zone was prepared on the basis of respective merits of those selected candidates. THE name of the petitioner appeared against serial No.4 of that panel. THE names of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 appeared against the serial Nos. 7 and 9 respectively in the above panel. 6. THE name of the petitioner was recommended by the respondent No. 1 for appointment in Sripat Singh College, District Murshidabad while the names of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were recommended in Krishnanagar Women College and Ranaghat College respectively. 5 and 6 appeared against the serial Nos. 7 and 9 respectively in the above panel. 6. THE name of the petitioner was recommended by the respondent No. 1 for appointment in Sripat Singh College, District Murshidabad while the names of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were recommended in Krishnanagar Women College and Ranaghat College respectively. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in accordance with the provisions of clause 3 of Regulation 9 of the West Bengal College Service Commission (Manner of Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers Including the Principal) Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations), the name of the petitioner should have been recommended in respect of the vacancy in a College which was nearest to the permanent residence of the petitioner within the concerned University Zone. The name of the petitioner was recommended in respect of Sripat Singh college situated in the district of Murshidabad in gross violation of the above provisions. According to him, taking into consideration the permanent residence of the petitioner which was in Barrackpore within the district of North 24-Parganas, her name should have been recommended in respect of in one vacancy out of two vacancies available in two colleges in the district of Nadia. Those were in Rahaghat College and Krishnanagar Women College. According to him, the name of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were recommended in respect of the aforesaid two colleges superseding the right of the petitioner which was flowing from the provisions of clause 3 of Regulation 9 of the said Regulations. 7. ON the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that by virtue of an amendment in the West Bengal College Service Commission Act in the year 2004, a provision was made for the candidates to exercise option in respect of any of the five University Zones. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner exercised option in respect of Kalyani University. The petitioner did not submit any separate application along with her application exercising option for a college in the district of Nadia. The name of the petitioner was recommended in respect of a college registered under the Kalyani University. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner exercised option in respect of Kalyani University. The petitioner did not submit any separate application along with her application exercising option for a college in the district of Nadia. The name of the petitioner was recommended in respect of a college registered under the Kalyani University. It is further submitted by him that after the aforesaid amendment of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act in the year 2004, there was no occasion for the respondent No.1 to give area wise preference to a candidate taking into consideration his/her position in the panel in order of merit apart from considering the case of recommendation on the basis of option for University Zone. According to Mr. Mondal since the provisions of the Act shows prevail on the provision of the regulations, the clause 3 of Regulation 9 became non est in the eye of law. He further submits that in view of the provision of clause 2 of Regulation 9 the respondent No.1 was under an obligation to give priority to the requisition made by different colleges at the time of considering the names of the selected candidates from the list prepared in order to merit. Since the respondent No. 1 received the requisition from Sripat Singh College before receiving requisition from Ranaghat College and Krishnanagar Women College, preference was given to Sripat Singh College while considering the name of the petitioner in order of her position in the list prepared in order of merit. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and I have given my anxious consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly, the petitioner filed an application dated April 21,2007 for participating in the selection process in question in a prescribed form. The above application shows that the petitioner opted for Kalyani University Zone. In the prescribed form, there was no column for exercising option for furnishing area wise preference. It is an admitted position that the petitioner obtained 4th position in the panel prepared in order of merit out of 11 selected candidates obtaining 54.27% marks. It is also not in dispute that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 obtained 7th and 9th position respectively in the above list obtaining 53.18% and 51.31% of marks. For proper adjudication of this case, the provision of Regulation 9 of the said Regulations are quoted below: "9. It is also not in dispute that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 obtained 7th and 9th position respectively in the above list obtaining 53.18% and 51.31% of marks. For proper adjudication of this case, the provision of Regulation 9 of the said Regulations are quoted below: "9. Allotment of candidates - (1) On receipt of a request made by the Principal of a College for recommending the name of a suitable candidate for appointment in a vacancy against. An approved post, the Commission shall recommend only one name from the panel ror appointment against the vacancy. A copy of the letter recommending the name shall be endorsed to the candidates concerned. (2) The topmost name appearing in the panel at the material time shall be recommended every time. (3) The area wise preference of the candidates as well as the special requirement of the college concerned shall also be taken into account." 9. THE above regulation has not yet been repealed. Since the above Regulations was in force the provisions of the said Regulations was require to be adhered to by the respondent No.1 at the time of recommending the names of the selected candidates for the post of "Lecturer" on the basis of the selection which took place in the year 2008 pursuant to the advertisement under reference. Clause 3 Regulation 9 of the said Regulations enabled the eligible candidates to give area wise preference at the time of their selection. 10. I do not agree with the submissions made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that in view of the amendment made in the West Bengal College Service Commission Act in the year 2004 for exercising option of University Zone. The above provision became non est either expressly or by implication. There is no conflict in between those two provisions. Reference may be made to the settled principles of law as decided in the matter of Nazir Ahmed vs. King Emporium, reported in AIR 1936 PC 253. The above decision was followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its celebrated judgement in the matter of Ramphal Kundu vs. Kamal Sharma, reported in 2004(2) SCC 759 . 11. Reference may be made to the settled principles of law as decided in the matter of Nazir Ahmed vs. King Emporium, reported in AIR 1936 PC 253. The above decision was followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its celebrated judgement in the matter of Ramphal Kundu vs. Kamal Sharma, reported in 2004(2) SCC 759 . 11. IN view of the above, the decision making process of the respondent No.1 in ignoring the provisions of clause 3 of Regulation 9 of the said Regulations in I recommending the names of the selected candidates cannot be sustained in law. 12. THE provisions of clause 2 of Regulation 9 prescribed for recommending the topmost name appearing in the panel at the time of recommending the names of the selected candidates. THE date of requisition received from the respective colleges was not material for the purpose of recommending the names of the candidates. THErefore, the submissions made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this regard are misconceived. It is not in dispute that at the time of considering the name of the petitioner from the panel of the selected candidates two colleges in the district of Nadia were available, those were in Ranaghat College and Krishnanagar Women College. It is also not in dispute that out of two colleges Ranaghat College was the nearest college taking into consideration the permanent residential address as disclosed by the petitioner in her application dated April 21, 2007. THErefore, the recommendation of her name in respect of Sripat Singh College in the district of Murshidabad suffered from procedural impropriety. There was procedural impropriety in recommending the names of the candidates from the above merit list of selected candidates. Admittedly, the name of the respondent No. 6 was recommended in respect of the aforesaid Ranaghat College. Though she obtained lesser marks 51.31% in comparison to that of 54.27% marks obtained by the petitioner. 13. FROM the records produced before this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3,I find that the name of the respondent No.6 appeared in serial No. 9 of the panel for selected candidates in Political Science under the general category. 13. FROM the records produced before this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3,I find that the name of the respondent No.6 appeared in serial No. 9 of the panel for selected candidates in Political Science under the general category. In the event, the respondents are directed to cancel her appointment in respect of Ranaghat College for accommodating the respondent No.6 in Sripat Singh College to set the wrong at knot, her right in the light of the provisions of Regulation 9 of the said Regulations taken into consideration her (respondent No.) position in the list prepared in order of merit will not be adversely affected. The petitioner had a better position over the names of those candidates appearing at serial Nos. 10 and 11. 14. IN view of the above discussions and observations the recommendation of the names of the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 in respect of Sripat Singh College, Murshidabad and Rahaghat College, Nadia are quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to recommend the name of the petitioner in respect of Ranaghat College, District Nadia and that of the respondent No. 6 in respect of Sripat Singh College within a period of four weeks from date. 15. THIS writ petition stands disposed of. 16. THERE will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.