Judgment :- Harish Tandon, J. The parties have been litigating since the Year 1999 relating to the selection of primary teacher by the District Primary School Council, North 24 Parganas. The petitioners in this contempt applications enrolled themselves in the Employment Exchange within the said district under the different category viz. Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe, Other Backward Classes and Physically Handicapped etc. Although they were registered in the Employment Exchange but their names could not be sponsored for a considerable period of 18 years. However, the process for recruitment of a primary teacher commenced in the year 1996 for filling up the 1157 posts of Assistant Teacher in different primary schools. The petitioners’ name were sponsored and were further allowed to fill up the form providing the requisite details and particulars. The said Council prepared and published the panel which does not include the name of the petitioners. 105 persons including the petitioners challenged the said panel in writ petition being W.P. No. 1777 (W) of 1999. On several grounds namely; the Council did not reserve 50% of the post for trained candidates, foreign nationals have been appointed, reservation of 3% of the total vacancies for handicapped persons were not maintained and the persons who did not render 240 days in census work have been allowed to participate under the Exempted Category. At the time of moving the said writ petition, it was observed that the neither of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition involve the point of public importance and, therefore, should be placed before the bench taking up the public interest litigation. The Division Bench, however, set aside the said order and observed that the matter does not involve any public importance and granted liberty to the writ petitioners therein to add and/or implead the foreign nationals who had been appointed by the said Council. Pursuant to the liberty granted for addition of alleged foreign nationals as party respondent therein and application was taken out which was eventually allowed. By judgment dated April 20, 2004, the Director of the School Education was directed to scrutinize the panel in terms of the Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teacher of the year 1991. The said authority was, further, directed to find out the illegalities or irregularities in the panel and if the same is detected, the said authority shall exclude those selected candidates. The said authority was, further, directed to find out the illegalities or irregularities in the panel and if the same is detected, the said authority shall exclude those selected candidates. It was further observed that while scrutinizing the panel, the said authority shall also see that whether the petitioners therein are entitled to be empanelled or not. The Chairman, District Primary School Council was also directed to produce all the records and papers to the Director of the School Education for compliance of the above directions. This contempt application is at the instance of some of the writ petitioners alleging the willful and deliberate violation of the directions made in the writ petition by not considering whether the reservation quota, selection procedure has been followed and also that the person who does not belong to the Exempted Category as well as the foreign nationals have been given appointment. In substance, the gamut of allegations in the instant contempt application is based upon willful and deliberate violation of the directions passed in a judgment dated April 20, 2004 in W.P. No. 1777 (W) of 1999. Pursuant to the rule issued in this contempt application, the Director of the School Education was personally present on August 11, 2005 and submitted that the Chairman of the District Primary School Council has not forwarded the relevant records and, therefore, the direction could not be complied with. Subsequently, the Chairman District Primary School Council was directed to send all the relevant papers to the Director of the School Education so that the directions made in the writ petition could be complied with. Although, the said order was passed on March 29, 2007 but unfortunately when the matter again appear on June 24, 2011 it was submitted by the Director of the School Education that the Chairman of the District Primary School Council, North 24 Parganas did not produce all the records and papers. However, in order to give another chance, the matter was, further, adjourned and certain papers were handed over in Court to the Director of the School Education for necessary compliance. The report dated August 29, 2011 was filed by the Director of the School Education praying for further time to comply the directions as it requires the voluminous documents to be considered. The report dated August 29, 2011 was filed by the Director of the School Education praying for further time to comply the directions as it requires the voluminous documents to be considered. By way of a supplementary affidavit, the Director of the School Education submitted the report which envisages that the statutory requirements were followed at the time of preparation of the panel. So far as, the allegation relating to the appointment of the Foreign Nationals are concerned out of 25 candidates, the documents relating to 11 candidates were scrutinized and they have been found Indian National but the documents relating to 14 persons were not forwarded by the Chairman, District Primary School Council, North 24 Parganas and, therefore, no opinion could be formed relating to those candidates. An affidavit taking exception to the said report is filed by the petitioner stating that the said report has been submitted without considering the relevant documents and/or papers. It is further stated that the person who are not eligible to be registered under the Exempted Category are considered and were given appointment under such category. The main thrust in the said affidavit is that by a government order no. 26011/19/71-1C dated November 29, 1971, any person who crosses the border after March 25, 1971 from the East Bengal shall be registered as Indian citizen under Section 5 (1) (a) of the citizenship Act. It is further contended that those candidates who allegedly claimed themselves to be Indian Citizen cannot acquire such status in view of the said government order. It is submitted by the petitioners that there was a non-compliance of Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules 1991, in as much as, the candidates were not call in a ratio 1:5 as required under said rules. It is further submitted that the person who were empanelled under the Exempted Category could not be treated under such category as they have not worked for 240 days as enumerator in the census 1981. Lastly, it is submitted that the 11 candidates who obtained qualification from Bangladesh cannot be treated as Indian Citizen and, therefore, their names should not have been included in the panel. The learned Advocate appearing for the Director of the School Education submits that the scrutiny of all the relevant papers and documents relating to the preparation of the said panel discloses the due compliance of the Statutory Recruitment Rules, 1991. The learned Advocate appearing for the Director of the School Education submits that the scrutiny of all the relevant papers and documents relating to the preparation of the said panel discloses the due compliance of the Statutory Recruitment Rules, 1991. It is further submitted that the zone of consideration in the said selection process was restricted amongst the sponsored candidates and, therefore, the candidates who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange under the Exempted Category were considered under such category. It is submitted that the panel was prepared in terms of the statutory rules for each category and none of the petitioners could secure the requisite marks for appointment in their respective category. Lastly, it is submitted that the 25 candidates who obtained academic qualification from Bangladesh and were given appointment as primary teacher were also sponsored by the Employment Exchange by treating them as the Indian citizen and the relevant documents in this regard was also produced before issuance of the letter of appointment. Having heard the respective submissions, I am not unmindful that the scope of interference under the contempt jurisdiction is not as wide as the writ jurisdiction. It is the willful and deliberate violation of the order by the alleged contemnor which exposes them to the punishment contemplated under the Contempt of Courts Act. Under such limited compass, let me scrutinize whether the alleged contemnor is guilty of willful and deliberate violation of the direction/order passed in a judgment dated April 20, 2004 in the writ petition. On meaningful reading of the judgment dated April 20, 2004 passed in the writ petition, the points agitated therein pertains to bring into the zone of consideration foreign nations and theirs appointment, as well as non-observance of the statutory rules at the time of preparation of the panel in question. The Court while disposing of the said writ petition thought that the matter requires scrutiny/investigation by the Director of the School Education. The necessary direction was made upon the Director of the School Education and it would be necessary to quote the excerpts of the said order which is as follows: “I also direct the Director of School Education concerned to scrutinize the panel in terms of Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teachers of the year 1991. The necessary direction was made upon the Director of the School Education and it would be necessary to quote the excerpts of the said order which is as follows: “I also direct the Director of School Education concerned to scrutinize the panel in terms of Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teachers of the year 1991. The Director of School Education after the scrutiny of such panel if finds, that there are illegalities or irregularities in the panel, the Director will recast the panel and prepare it in accordance with law. Though it has been observed by me that the panel prepared cannot be quashed here and now, the Director will exclude those selected candidates who have been illegally selected and cancel the appointments of those candidates who have been illegally appointed, of course, after given them hearing. The Director will also consider as to whether the petitioners are entitled to be empanelled and if the Director on scrutiny finds that any of the petitioners is entitled to get appointment, the Director will consider his case and direct the Chairman of the said Council to empanel the candidate who according to the Director is legally entitled or was legally entitled to be empanelled and in that event the Director will not consider the age bar inasmuch as during the course of litigation the age of those candidates crossed the limit. It is made clear that the Director on scrutiny, if dins, any of the petitioners eligible for being empanelled in that particular panel concerned in this writ petition then and then only the question of relaxation of age bar will arise in case of the candidate or candidates that is the petitioner or petitioners who are or were legally entitled to be selected. Such consideration and scrutiny is to be made by the Director within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order”. The Director of the School Education prepared the report by making the scrutiny on the points viz. Such consideration and scrutiny is to be made by the Director within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order”. The Director of the School Education prepared the report by making the scrutiny on the points viz. 1) Whether Reservation quotas in terms of Rule12 of the Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teachers of the year 1991 were strictly maintained or not; 2) Whether the selection procedure as envisaged in Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1991 has been strictly followed or not; 3) Whether the exempted category candidates have been given appointment in violation of Rule or not; 4) Whether foreign nationals have been given appointment or not; 5) Whether the petitioners are entitled to be empanelled; The said authority observed that in terms of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules 1991, the total number of vacancies were notified as 1585 including the 10% reservation in died-in-harness category. Subsequently, 277 more vacancies were notified. Out of which 257 vacancies were notified under the Exempted Category but because of the non-availability of the requisite number of the candidates under the said category, 997 candidates were sponsored and were allowed to fill up the forms. Since there was non-availability of the Schedule Tribe and Ex-Serviceman Category, no panel for those categories under the Exempted Category could be prepared by the Council. It is further observed that none of the petitioners could secure the minimum requisite marks under their respective category and, therefore, their names were not included in the panel of the successful candidates. So far as the allegation relating to the appointment of the Foreign Nationals are concerned, 11 candidates out of 25 are found to be Indian National from the document submitted by them whereas the verification relating to the credential of the 14 candidates being a foreign origin could not be scrutinized because of the lack of relevant papers and documents. However, it is stated in the said report that their credential should be examined on receiving the relevant documents and if they are found to be a foreign national and appropriate action shall be taken against them. By another report dated November 21, 2011, the Director of the School Education found further 8 candidates to be of Indian National. However, it is stated in the said report that their credential should be examined on receiving the relevant documents and if they are found to be a foreign national and appropriate action shall be taken against them. By another report dated November 21, 2011, the Director of the School Education found further 8 candidates to be of Indian National. This Court showed anguish upon the reluctance being shown by the Chairman, District Primary School Council in forwarding all the relevant documents relating to the remaining 6 candidates who are alleged to be of Foreign Nationals from time to time, the time was extended for onward transmission of those documents. However, subsequently the testimonial and relevant documents were handed over wherefrom it appears prima facie that they are an Indian National. At this stage, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that they cannot be treated as the Indian National in view of the embargo created in the said government order dated November 29, 1971. The Recruitment Rules 1991 restricts the zone of consideration for appointment as primary teacher amongst the sponsored candidate. The Employment Exchange forwarded the name of the eligible candidates from the roster maintained by it. The documents submitted by the alleged candidates shows that they are Indian National unless the citizenship so granted is cancelled and/or terminated being in contravention to the citizenship Act, 1955. Under Section 8 of the Foreigners Act 1946, the power to determination the nationality shall be determined by the prescribed authority. Therefore, neither the Director of the School Education nor the Chairman, District Primary School Council is competent to declare the persons to be a foreigner. Those authorities also do not enjoin the power to terminate the citizenship if otherwise conferred which is an exclusive domain of the prescribed authority under the aforesaid Acts. Under the contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot undertake the hovering inquiry and declared the candidates to be of Foreign National and the conferment of a citizenship of this country to be illegal and contrary to law. The segregation of power is one of the facets in the legal jurisprudence. Each authority is empowered to do a thing as is required to be done by the law governing it. One cannot overstep to the domain of another. The segregation of power is one of the facets in the legal jurisprudence. Each authority is empowered to do a thing as is required to be done by the law governing it. One cannot overstep to the domain of another. The entire report is based upon the documents submitted by the candidates relating to their nationality and in my mind, the Director of the School Education has not committed wrong in coming to a finding that those are the Indian National. Credential of some of the candidates relating to their citizenship is doubtful but neither the alleged contemnors nor the Court should venture to make an inquiry relating to the granting of the citizenship by the competent authority. To illustrate one in case of Arati Rani Biswas it appears that she passed out the Higher Secondary Examination in 1980 and was graduated from the University of Dhaka in the year 1982 but the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India reveals to be of Indian Nationality. There may be other instances as well but this Court cannot go into intricacies thereof as those are required to be investigated by a prescribed authority. Although this Court does not find that the alleged contemnors have willfully and deliberately violated the directions made in the judgment dated April 20, 2004 but cannot be moot spectator if there is a prima facie anomaly and/or infirmity and/or illegality. So far as granting of the citizenship is concerned, the Director of the School Education is, therefore, directed to transmit all the relevant documents and papers which was under his consideration for coming to a finding as to whether the candidate of Foreign National or of Indian Origin to the prescribed authority under the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act within six weeks from the date of the communications of this order. The prescribed authority on receipt of those documents shall make an independent inquiry as contemplated under the aforesaid Acts without being influenced by any observation made in this order. It goes without saying that the said authority shall offer an opportunity of personal hearing to all the persons who would be effected by any decision to be taken by the said authority. It goes without saying that the said authority shall offer an opportunity of personal hearing to all the persons who would be effected by any decision to be taken by the said authority. Apart from taking steps required under the law, the prescribed authority shall also transmit his decision to the Director of the School Education who shall take further steps for termination of the services of those Foreign Nationals if they are found to be so and if any of the 105 writ petitioners are found eligible to be appointed, such appointment shall be made and the notional benefit from the date of the appointment of those Foreign Nationals shall be given to them. The contempt application is dismissed with aforesaid observations. However, there shall be no order as to costs.