Judgment : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. Dhadalibar High School in the District of Purba Mednapur applied for prior permission to fill up the post of Group-D Staff. Accordingly, Additional District Inspector of School (SE) (Contai Sub-Division) Purba Medinipur granted prior permission vide Memo dated August 29, 2007 appearing at Page-110 of the stay application. The School Managing Committee vide resolution dated September 5, 2007 initiated the selection process. The Employment Exchange sponsored the candidates who participated in the selection. An eligible candidate approached the learned Single Judge by filing WP No. 26947 (W) of 2007 inter alia praying for consideration of his case and permission to participate in the said selection process. The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition vide Judgment and Order dated May 15, 2008 directing the School to cause advertisements in News Paper having wider circulation giving opportunity to all eligible candidates for the post. Accordingly, the School initiated a fresh process. The Managing Committee held a further meeting on June 10, 2009 and decided to take further steps in the matter in the subsequent meeting held on February 21, 2009. They finalized the jist of the advertisement and the News papers where it would be published. Accordingly, advertisement was published in the News Papers and the candidates applied for the post. The Managing Committee held further meeting on March 21, 2009. The Managing Committee prepared a panel of three persons for appointment of expert. The Secretary of the School was granted liberty to contact the empanelled expert to have their consent and engage one of them. In a subsequent meeting held on September 12, 2009, the Managing Committee decided to send invitation to the short listed candidates for the purpose of interview. Accordingly, call letters were sent to all eligible candidates. One Debaprasad Paria filed the writ petition being WP No. 21287 of 2009 inter alia alleging that he was selected in the selection process and became successful in getting his name at the top of the panel which the Additional District Inspector School (SE) was not approving despite the same being sent to him. The learned Judge directed the Additional District Inspector to consider the panel vide Order dated April 22, 2010. The Additional District Inspector School (SE) considered the issue and passed the reasoned order dated June 10, 2010 appearing at Page- 178-179. The learned Judge directed the Additional District Inspector to consider the panel vide Order dated April 22, 2010. The Additional District Inspector School (SE) considered the issue and passed the reasoned order dated June 10, 2010 appearing at Page- 178-179. The Additional District Inspector (SE) rejected the said panel inter alia on the following grounds:- i) The panel was submitted by the Head Master without the consent of the Managing Committee. ii) The Managing Committee vide resolution dated November 27, 2009 refused to accept the panel. iii) The panchayat nominee did not sign the score-sheet. iv) Panchayat nominee did not also recognize his signature said to be appearing on the score sheet. v) The Secretary of the Managing Committee submitted an alternative panel. The Inspector found the process irregular and thus declined to accord approval to the panel. Second writ petition being WP No. 13589 of 2010 was filed challenging the reasoned order passed by the Additional District Inspector (SE). The learned Judge disposed of the matter vide Judgment and Order dated August 9, 2011. The learned Judge observed that once the Selection Process was completed it was the duty of the Managing Committee to send the panel to the District Inspector for approval. Once Managing Committee failed to do so the Head Master did not commit any illegality in sending the same. The learned Judge observed as follows : “In my opinion, in such a situation the headmaster is the competent authority to send the panel of the selected candidates before the appropriate authority for getting approval. In my opinion there is no illegality in sending the names of the selected candidates before the District Inspector of Schools for approval since the selection was made in accordance with law by a Selection Committee. It is purely a clerical work. Whether the panel is sent by the Managing Committee or the Headmaster of the institution, it makes no difference.” The learned Judge set aside the Order of the Additional District Inspector (SE) and asked the District Inspector to consider and approve the panel. Being aggrieved, the school preferred the instant appeal that was heard by us on the above mentioned date. Mr. Being aggrieved, the school preferred the instant appeal that was heard by us on the above mentioned date. Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended as follows:- i) In case the selection committee prepared a panel and sent it for approval of the Managing Committee the Managing Committee was to examine and forward the panel to the District Inspector. The Head Master did not have any authority to do so. ii) The Additional District Inspector (SE) was not empowered to decide on the panel. iii) Once the Managing Committee declined to accept the panel it could not have been forwarded by the Head Master and the Additional District Inspector (SE) rightly rejected the same. The learned Judge erred in upsetting so. Elaborating his argument Mr. Bandyopadhyay drew our attention to allocation of business by the State to show that the approval of appointment could only be done by the District Inspector and nobody else. He also referred to Rule-8 of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of non-teaching staff) Rules-2005 wherein complete procedure was provided for the purpose of filling up the post of non-teaching staff. The subject selection process did not undergo such general procedure. Hence, it was liable to be set aside and the Additional District Inspector (SE) rightly did so. He referred to an unreported decision of this Court in F.M.A. No.1107 of 2010 wherein the Division Bench held that the Additional District Inspector had no authority to approve the appointment. Opposing the application Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Debaprasad Paria contended that the Managing Committee did not have any authority to decline sending of panel. Once the prior permission was obtained the school was obliged to complete the process of sending the panel to the District Inspector for his approval. On the issue of allocation of business, Mr.Gupta contended that Additional District Inspector (SE) were also District Inspectors and would enjoy equal power. Allocation of business would not preclude Additional Inspector to deal with the subject selection process and act upon the same. Mr. Gupta contended that even if we would examine the resolution of the Managing Committee we would find that the reason for rejection was flimsy. There was no definite reason for discarding the panel. Opposing the application, Mr. Allocation of business would not preclude Additional Inspector to deal with the subject selection process and act upon the same. Mr. Gupta contended that even if we would examine the resolution of the Managing Committee we would find that the reason for rejection was flimsy. There was no definite reason for discarding the panel. Opposing the application, Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharjya, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State contended that the plea that the Additional District Inspector (SE) did not have power, was not at all urged before the learned Single Judge. The School wrote to the Additional District Inspector (SE) for his prior permission and acted upon it. Hence, it would be too late in the day to challenge his authority, particularly when entire selection process was completed on the strength of the prior permission given by him. On the question of acceptability of the panel Mr. Bhattacharjee left it to the discretion of the Court. We have considered the rival contentions. We fully agree with Mr. Bhattacharjee when he criticized the argument of the appellant on the authority of the Additional District Inspector (SE). We are not sure whether the Additional District Inspectors enjoy the same power as District Inspector. From the allocation of business we find that vide Circular dated June 8, 2000, the Government decided to have complete independent office at all Sub-Divisional level having an Additional District Inspector (SE) of the Schools as head of the office. The Government also directed transfer of the support staff from the office of the District Inspector who would henceforth remain under the control of the Additional District Inspector (SE). District Inspector would be in-charge of the Sadar Sub-Division whereas Additional District Inspectors would be in-charge of the other Sub-Divisions. The Additional District Inspectors of School (SE) of the Sub-Division would independently dispose of matters as detailed in Annexure-C. Clause-4 of Annexure-C is quoted below :- “Approval of appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff under intimation to the District Inspector of Schools (SE).” In view of the above, we feel that the Additional District Inspector (SE) did not commit illegality in supervising the selection process as discussed above. Prior permission was not specifically stipulated in Annexure-B or C in the allocation of business as contained in the notification dated June 8, 2000. Hence, we feel, prior permission would be covered by Clause-4 quoted above. Prior permission was not specifically stipulated in Annexure-B or C in the allocation of business as contained in the notification dated June 8, 2000. Hence, we feel, prior permission would be covered by Clause-4 quoted above. Let us now consider the issue on merit. Rule 8(5)(a) would provide commencement of the selection process. After receipt of prior permission the School Authority was to make requisition to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring of candidates. The other Sub-rules provided for the process of selection. As per Rule-9(7)(a), the selection committee shall within 15 days from the date of interview, prepare a panel and submit the same to the appointing authority. The appointing authority would mean the Managing Committee of the School. As per Rule 9 (7)(b) the appointing authority shall within 15 days from the date of submission panel by the Selection Committee “Examine the Panel” and along with all relevant papers, submit the same to the District Inspector of School (SE) for his approval. In the instant case the Government reallocated the work to the Additional District Inspector in the Sub-Division. The Selection Committee ought to have prepared a Panel and submitted the same to the Managing Committee who in turn was obliged to send it to the District Inspector and in the present case Additional District Inspector (SE) with their comments on examination. We fully agree with Mr. Gupta, the Managing Committee did not have any authority to decline sending of the panel. We also join issue with the learned Judge, the Managing Committee did not have any role to play. Once the Selection Committee was formed and they conducted the interview they were supposed to prepare a panel and send it to the Managing Committee. In the instant case the Managing Committee had following options:- i) They could send back consolidated score-sheet to the Selection Committee for preparation of a formal panel to be signed by all the members. ii) Ask for the reasons for panchayat nominee not having signed on the panel. iii) Constitute a fresh Selection Committee to interview all candidates afresh. iv) Send the entire record to the Additional District Inspector (SE) for his perusal. The Managing Committee however did not adopt any of the four options and decided to reject the panel. The Managing Committee did not have such power under the recruitment rules. iii) Constitute a fresh Selection Committee to interview all candidates afresh. iv) Send the entire record to the Additional District Inspector (SE) for his perusal. The Managing Committee however did not adopt any of the four options and decided to reject the panel. The Managing Committee did not have such power under the recruitment rules. The Head Master also committed illegality in the sending the panel to the Additional District Inspector (SE) who rightly declined to accord his approval. The Managing Committee also could not have prepared an alternative panel. In fact, Managing Committee did not have authority to prepare panel. They were to examine the panel prepared by the Selection Committee and send it for approval. We do not approve of the logic so advanced by His Lordship that it was a clerical job. The Managing Committee being the appointing authority has every right to see that appropriate candidate is selected through a proper selection process and every stage of selection process could be scrutinized by them and if they find fault at any stage they must point out and highlight the same. Once the selection process was completed by the Selection Committee the Managing Committee could not have declined to send it to the District Inspector or the Additional District Inspector (SE), as the case may be. Appeal succeeds in part. We direct the Managing Committee to re-examine the issue. They would be at liberty either to appoint a fresh Selection Committee to interview the candidates who were interviewed earlier or to ask for the comments of the Panchayat nominee. In case the Selection Committee prepares a formal panel the Managing Committee would examine the same and send it to the Additional District Inspector (SE) for his approval along with their comments on examination of the same. The Additional District Inspector would consider and approve the same, if it is in order. The Additional District Inspector (SE) would assign reason, in case of refusal. The appeal along with the application is disposed of without any order as to costs.