Judgment :- Harish Tandon, J. This writ petition involves a chequered history. The petitioners being the unsuccessful candidates have challenged the panel prepared in the year 1996 in clear contravention to the statutory rules. Before the bifurcation of the District Medinipore, the vacancies to the post of a primary teacher was notified to the Employment Exchange in the year 1987. Although the Employment Exchange sponsored the names but the selection process could not commence because of the intervening litigations pending in the High Court. By another letter, the District Primary School Council of undivided Medinipore again notified the vacancies occurred between the year 1991 to 1998 and the Employment Exchange sponsored 40,475 names up to the month of November, 1992. Similarly other District Primary School Council also notified the vacancies to the respective Employment Exchanges within the district contemplating the filling up of the post of the primary teacher in the different primary school. Several writ petitions were taken out by an association espousing the cause of the intending aspirants. Challenging the process and the manner of selection being violative of the statutory rules, those writ petitions were disposed of on September 28, 1989 as the appointments are made to an untrained candidates which is unauthorized and illegal. Challenging the said judgment, an appeal was preferred which was disposed of on May 10, 1991 directing the different District Primary School Councils to take step for preparation of the fresh panel in accordance with law and/or additional post sanctioned by the State Government due to the enhancement of the roll strength to be filled up by the trained candidates only. It was further directed that 50% of the normal vacancies shall be filled up by the trained candidates and the remaining 50% of such vacancies shall be filled up by taking into consideration the candidature of the untrained candidates alongh with the trained candidates on rational and reasonable principle. The special writ petition against the said order of the Division Bench was further disposed of by permitting the petitioners therein to challenge the panel if those are inconsistent with the direction made by the Division Bench in a separate proceeding before the High Court. The special writ petition against the said order of the Division Bench was further disposed of by permitting the petitioners therein to challenge the panel if those are inconsistent with the direction made by the Division Bench in a separate proceeding before the High Court. Pursuant to the leave so granted, some of the aggrieved persons again moved a writ petition alleging that the competent authority is contemplating to prepare the panel and giving appointments in utter disregard to an order of the Division Bench. An interim order was passed therein directing the authorities concerned to prepare the panel in accordance with the order of the Division Bench after giving an opportunity to all necessitated persons to appear before the interview Board. In the said pending appeal it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the Panel is prepared in gross violation of the directions made by the earlier Division Bench and the Division Bench appointed two Special Officers for inspection of the record and to submit the report in this regard. The report submitted by the Special Officer reflects gross irregularities in preparation of the panel in respect of two district namely Medinipore and Howrah. The Division Bench in its judgment dated March 30, 1994 recorded the irregularities perpetrated in preparation of the panel in respect of the aforesaid districts and directed the Director of the School Education to reconsider the matter having due regard to the report of the Special Officer. The Director of School Education was further directed to recast the panel and in the event, such irregularities are found, the candidate eligible for an appointment shall be given such appointment and the persons who have been favoured illegally shall be kept in waiting until further vacancies are notified. However, some relief was given to the appointed persons to continue in service until the matter is considered by the Director of the School Education. The special leave petition against the order of the Division Bench was disposed of on December 5, 1995 by modifying the order of the Division Bench to the extent with mere recasting of the panel as directed by the Division Bench would not meet the ends of justice and the legitimate aspiration of the bonafide and deserving candidates. The special leave petition against the order of the Division Bench was disposed of on December 5, 1995 by modifying the order of the Division Bench to the extent with mere recasting of the panel as directed by the Division Bench would not meet the ends of justice and the legitimate aspiration of the bonafide and deserving candidates. The Supreme Court, thereafter, quashed and set aside the panel prepared for the District of Malda and Medinipore and directed the respective Councils to prepare the fresh panel in accordance with the law keeping in view of the direction of the order dated May 10, 1991 passed by the Division Bench. The grievance in this writ petition is that in spite of the specific direction made by the Supreme Court, the subsequent panel is nothing by the replica of the earlier panel which is quashed and set aside by the Apex Court. It is further alleged that the candidates who are less qualified than the petitioners are still retained in the impugned panel; Even the candidate who does not have the eligible qualification and were included in the panel which was cancelled by the Apex Court are still included in the impugned panel. It is further alleged that certain candidates who were included in the cancelled panel under the general category have been shown in the impugned panel under the Schedule Caste Category and vice versa. While preparing the impugned panel, the direction passed by the Division Bench on May 10, 1991 which was affirmed by the Apex Court to fill up the 50% from the normal vacancies from the trained candidates and the remaining 50% of the normal vacancies to be filled up by taking into consideration the claim of the trained candidates vis-à-vis the untrained candidates on the basis of some rational and reasonable principle is also not followed. A large number of application has been taken out by the different persons claiming to be interested and affected by any decision taken in this writ petition seeking their addition which was allowed from time to time. In the midst of the hearing of the writ petition, this court finds that the persons already appointed under the impugned panel are required to be given an opportunity of hearing before proceeding to deal with the points involved in this writ petition. In the midst of the hearing of the writ petition, this court finds that the persons already appointed under the impugned panel are required to be given an opportunity of hearing before proceeding to deal with the points involved in this writ petition. Since the appointees are enormous, this Court granted leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for publication. Pursuant to the publication, several applications for additions have been filed at the instance of the appointed candidates and this Court allowed the applicants of all those applications to address the court in support of their stand. Before proceeding to deal with the arguments advanced by the petitioner, the respondent authorities and the applicants whose applications are either allowed or, as indicated above, have been permitted to make their submissions, it would be proper to record a formal order of allowing the pending applications which are accordingly disposed of. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the impugned panel is nothing but the replica of the cancelled panel and, therefore, the irregularities pointed out in the report of the Special Officer appointed by the Division Bench in an earlier writ proceeding remains and, therefore, the panel cannot withstand because of the fact that the earlier panel was cancelled by the Supreme Court on the basis of such irregularities. It is further submitted that the direction made by the Division Bench on May 10, 1991 has not been followed in preparing the impugned panel and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and cancelled. It is audaciously argued that in the writ petition initiated by some of the persons challenging the impugned panel, the court directed the Director of the School Education to make an inquiry as to the preparation of the impugned panel. The report of the Director of the School Education discloses the infirmities and/or irregularities in preparation of the impugned panel and, therefore, the panel should be cancelled. It is further submitted that the impugned panel is prepared with the closed mind and to circumvent the order dated May 10, 1991, all the candidates who were included in a cancelled panel are retained in the impugned panel. It is submitted that the entire selection process is undertaken by adopting a procedure which is neither prescribed nor contemplated in the order dated May 10, 1991. It is submitted that the entire selection process is undertaken by adopting a procedure which is neither prescribed nor contemplated in the order dated May 10, 1991. Lastly it is submitted that awarding of the marks for B.ED degree as equivalent to Primary Teachers’ Training Certificate is not permissible under the statutory rules and, therefore, those candidates cannot be treated as the trained one. Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate appearing for the Paschim Medinipore District Primary School Council and Mr. Rajib Acharya, appearing for the Purba District Primary School Council unanimously submit that the 1996 selection process was conducted in terms of the statutory rules which would be evident from the report of an inquiry conducted by the Director of the School Education dated 06.06.2012. He candidly submits that it would be evident from the said report that few non-trained candidates who were sponsored under the general category have been shown under the Schedule Caste Category but due to the non-availability of the testimonials, it could not be ascertained whether they submitted the Schedule Caste certificate at the time of interview. They further submit that after the direction made by the Supreme Court, a fresh selection committee was formed and the candidature was evaluated on the basis of 50 marks out of which 25 marks was allowed for academic qualification, 15 marks for oral interview and 10 marks for general impression. They vehemently submit that although certain candidates who obtained 3rd Division Marks in Matriculation were appointed but they performed well in the interview and the general impression. Lastly, it is submitted that the marks were awarded for B.T or B.ED degree in terms of the memo dated 07.02.1967 issued by the then Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal and subsequently, by Memo No.353-SE (pry) dated May 31, 1996 issued by the School Education Department by which it was directed that the primary teachers who obtained B.T or B.ED degree before 01.07.1996 might be decided in terms of Memo dated 07.02.1967. There are large number of applicants who were subsequently added as the party-respondent in this writ petition by an order passed from time to time. This Court thought it fit for the purpose of convenience to segregate those applicants into two groups namely the candidates who are supporting the cause of the petitioner and the candidates who are opposing the claim of the petitioners. This Court thought it fit for the purpose of convenience to segregate those applicants into two groups namely the candidates who are supporting the cause of the petitioner and the candidates who are opposing the claim of the petitioners. To avoid the prolixity of repetition, the submissions which are made by those respective groups are recorded in the manner of their respective stand. The applicant who are in support of the petitioner jointly submit that the entire selection process undertaken in the year 1996 in compliance of the direction passed by the Supreme Court shows a glaring irregularities and irregularities and, therefore, is liable to be quashed and cancelled. It is further submitted that in case of Chitta Ranjan Bhunia & Ors vs. State of W.B. & ors. (C.O. 15165 (w) of 1996 decided on March 21, 2007) where those writ petitioners also challenged the impugned panel, the single bench of this Court directed the Director of the School Education to hold an inquiry as to whether the preparation of panel was done by following the Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teacher, 1991 or not. It is vehemently submitted that the selection process having been conducted under the Recruitment Rules of 1940 as observed by the Director of the School Education in his report, the impugned panel cannot sustain. It is succinctly argued that the preparation of the impugned panel is merely an eyewash and in fact, the cancelled panel is retained by the authorities. Lastly, it is submitted that the B.T or B.ED degree cannot be equated with the Teachers’ Training Certificate under the Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teacher, 1991 and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dilip Kumar Ghosh and ors. Vs. Chairman & ors. Reported in (2005) 7 SCC 567 . The learned Advocate appearing for the other group opposing the prayer of the petitioner jointly submit that in terms of the direction made by the Supreme Court, the selection committee held an interview afresh and the applicants were found eligible to be appointed to the post of a primary teacher. It is strenuously submitted that the applicants are rendering the services for more than 16 years after having undergone the selection process and, therefore, the panel should not be cancelled at this juncture. It is strenuously submitted that the applicants are rendering the services for more than 16 years after having undergone the selection process and, therefore, the panel should not be cancelled at this juncture. It is submitted that for the mistake of the authorities, the applicants who had been rendering the services for more than a decade should not be deprived of their livelihood. Lastly, it is submitted that the order passed in C.O. 15615 (W) of 1996 was restricted only to 251 candidates who were the petitioner therein and the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same. They placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Unreported judgment in C.O. No. 15165 (W) of 1996, (ii) Unreported judgment in M.A.T. No. 1658 of 2007, Tridip Kumar Dingal & ors. vs. State of W.B. & ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 768 , Onkar Lal Bajaj & ors. vs. Union of India & anr. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 673 . The learned Advocate appearing for the State, however, maintains and adopts the submissions made by Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya. After considering the respective submissions as noted above and on perusal of the record, the question revolves around whether the selection process undertaken in the year 1996 in terms of the direction made by the Supreme Court is legal and valid or is liable to quashed and set aside having conducted in gross contravention to the order of the Apex Court or the relevant statutory rules. It is no doubt true that the parties are litigating since 1996. Several directions were passed for production of the panel and ultimately, a report from the Director of the School Education is also forthcoming. Initially, the selection process started in the year 1986 but could not be completed because of the intervening litigations before the High Court. Before the preparation of the panel, litigations at the instance of the association was made before this court and the Division Bench in mandamus appeal against one of such litigations appointed two special officers to investigate and the report so submitted reveals a gross irregularities committed at the time of preparation of the panel which was so prepared when the matter was subjudiced before the Division Bench. The Division Bench thought that such irregularities cannot occupy the field and directed the recasting of panel in following words: “ As regards District Midnapore, it has been submitted that the Director, School Education (Primary) has already grant his approval in the matter and as such, question of re-opening the same does not and cannot arise. We are, however, not inclined to accept this contention as advanced by Mr. Bhuiya appearing for the Midnapore School Council. This court cannot lend a deaf ear and a blind eye to the irregularities as noted in the report of the Special Officers. The approval, if any, cannot thus be sustained and the same, therefore, is set aside and cancelled. The Director of School Education (Primary) is directed to consider the matter afresh and it is hereby ordered accordingly. This re-consideration of the matter by the Director shall be effected having due regard to the report that the report of the Special Officers and in the event the Director is of the view that the report of the Special officers and the instances mentioned therein require further consideration, he would do so and recast the panel accordingly. This order is passed upon consideration of the fact that this Court ought not to usurp the power of the Director in the matter of grant of approval. The Director is to act strictly in accordance with law having due regard to the provisions of law and the judgment of this Court in the earlier matter as noted above.” The matter, thereafter, went to the Supreme Court and it was held that the recasting would not be appropriate but requires afresh selection to be made and, therefore, the panel was quashed and set aside. It would be profitable to quote the excerpts of the order of the Supreme Court which is as follows: “The same cannot be said, however, in respect of the District of Malda as we find that all norms of fair play and adherence to rules have been given a go-bye in preparing the panel. So far as the district of Midnapore is concerned we have already noticed that the High Court has found gross irregularities in preparing the same and we find no reason to differ from the view expressed by the learned Judges. So far as the district of Midnapore is concerned we have already noticed that the High Court has found gross irregularities in preparing the same and we find no reason to differ from the view expressed by the learned Judges. It is, of course, true that except in the above two Districts, namely, Malda and Midnapur there are some instances of irregularities in the preparation of the panels for the other districts aforementioned but considering the number of candidates who were called for interview it cannot be said that irregularities of such a magnitude that the entire panel should be held to bad. But, keeping in view the nature of the irregularities and the illegalities committed in preparation of the panels in the District of Malda and Midnapur we feel that the mere recasting of the panels, as directed by the High Court in respect of the panel of Midnapur would not meet the ends of justice and the legitimate aspirations of the bonafide and deserving candidates. We, therefore, quash the panels for recruitment to the post of primary school teachers in the District of Malda and Midnapur and direct and respective Boards/Councils to prepare fresh panels in accordance with law, keeping in view the directions of the High Court in its earlier judgment dated May 10, 1991 and give appointments from those panels only.” The logical conclusion which could be arrived from the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is that it was contemplated that the fresh selection process is required to be undertaken which according to the report submitted by the director of the school education was undertaken by the selection committee. It is, therefore, afresh selection process which ensued in the year 1996 when the Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teacher, 1991 was in vogue. The said rule was framed in exercise of the rule making power contained in the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, and, therefore has a statutory force. The Single Bench of this Court in case of Chitta Ranjan Bhunia & Ors (supra) while considering the impugned panel was of the firmed view that the selection process should be conducted and guided by the Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teachers which came into force on 22.11.1991. The aforesaid judgment was passed after considering the stand of the council as well as the state and, therefore, is binding upon them. The aforesaid judgment was passed after considering the stand of the council as well as the state and, therefore, is binding upon them. It was further observed therein whether Rule 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the said Recruitment Rules, 1991 was in fact followed is a scrutiny of fact which should not be adjudicated by the Court in exercise of the power of judicial review. The matter was relegated to the Director of the School Education being the final approving authority. Neither the Council nor the State preferred an appeal against the said judgment but in fact, the writ petitioners therein filed a mandamus appeal being Mat No. 1658 of 2007 agitating a limited point that in stead of entrusting the matter to the Director of the School Education, the Hon’ble Single Bench should be appointed the special officer for the purpose of carrying out the duties cast upon the Director therein. The aforesaid submission was not found sustainable, as a consequence whereof, the mandamus appeal was dismissed. The order of the Hon’ble Single Bench was, therefore, affirmed and has reached finality. It was contemplated in the said judgment of the Hon’ble Single Bench that the Director should conduct and complete the inquiry within one month from the date. The aforesaid direction was brought to the notice in this writ petition and an order was passed upon the Director of the School Education to complete the inquiry as directed therein and to submit the report. An affidavit of compliance annexing the reports of the Director of the School Education and the Commissioner of School Education filed in the instant writ petition requires a total scrutiny. The aforesaid reports can be summarized in the following: (i) The selection process was conducted by following Recruitment Rules of 1940. (ii) The evaluation was made on the basis of 50 marks of which 25 marks was allotted for academic qualification, 15 marks for oral interview and 10 marks for general impression. The academic marks is further divided into four categories i.e. for 1st Division 25 marks, 2nd Division 20 marks, 3rd Division 15 and passed with compartmental/ Class VIII 12 marks. The marks allotted for general impression was also subdivided as for training and teaching experience 3 marks, literacy 2 and sports/arts/music/social service 5 marks. The academic marks is further divided into four categories i.e. for 1st Division 25 marks, 2nd Division 20 marks, 3rd Division 15 and passed with compartmental/ Class VIII 12 marks. The marks allotted for general impression was also subdivided as for training and teaching experience 3 marks, literacy 2 and sports/arts/music/social service 5 marks. (iii) Interview was held of all sponsored candidates on January 29, 1996 in five different venues by five-selection team. Total 3602 nos. of candidate were empanelled out of which 1792 were trained and remaining 1810 were untrained. The candidates securing 3rd Division in matriculation in both trained and untrained category were awarded prescribed marks for academic qualification for 3rd division but perform well in the interview and general impression. Candidates having B.ED or B.T or J.B.T were awarded 3 marks for training. Untrained candidate sponsored under the general category are included in the panel of non-trained schedule caste category. West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 was promulgated to make better events for development, expansion, management and control of primary education within the State of West Bengal. The said Act came into force on and from January 1, 1975 excepting the provisions contained under Section 77, 78, 89 & 105 thereof. Section 105 which is relevant in the present context contains the repeal and continuance provisions. The said section came into force on and from 2nd July, 1990 in respect of whole of the West Bengal excepting the area comprising in the Districts of North 24 Parganas, South 24 Parganas and Hill areas. By virtue of Section 105 of the said Act, the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act 1930, the West Bengal Urban Primary Education Act 1963, and the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary Provisions) Act 1969 are repealed. Section 106 of the said Act empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes for which the said Act was enacted. In exercise of the said rule making power, Rules regulating the Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary School in West Bengal was framed which was duly notified on November 22, 1991. The said rule provides mechanism for determination of the vacancy, filling up of the post, creation of post, qualification for the post of a primary teacher and the head teacher, selection procedure etc. The said rule provides mechanism for determination of the vacancy, filling up of the post, creation of post, qualification for the post of a primary teacher and the head teacher, selection procedure etc. Rule 35 is the repealing provision which repealed all the rules and orders made under the aforesaid repealed Acts which are contrary to the provision of the said rules. The selection procedure as enshrined in Rule 9 thereof, provides an evaluation on 100 points roster of which 65 marks are allotted for academic qualification, 20 marks for training, 10 marks for written test/ oral interview, 5 marks for co-curricular activity. It would be relevant to quote Rule 9 which is as under: “9. Selection Procedure.- (a) On or after the names of candidates for the posts of teachers are obtained from the employment exchange, all candidates shall be communicated in writing to produce testimonials/certificates for computation of their marks in the score sheets prepared for the purpose of such selection. (b) Credit shall be given and computed in the following manner: (i) there shall be 100 marks in total as full marks; (ii) the full marks shall be allotted to four different aspects of the candidate’s eligibility in the following manner:- 1. Academic Qualification – 65 marks 2. Training -20 ,, 3. Written Test/Oral Interview – 10,, 4. Co-curricular Activity -5 ,, Total 100 marks (iii) the percentage of marks to the total full marks obtained by the candidate in School Final/Madhyamik/Higher Secondary (XI Class) shall be computed as percentage of 65 and recorded in the score sheet, and if a candidate has passed two of the above public examinations, the better result only shall be computed; (iv) the percentage of marks to the total full marks obtained in Junior Basic Training Certificate Examination or equivalent shall be computed as percentage of 20 (twenty) and recorded in the score sheet; (v) marks obtained in the interviews shall be recorded in the score sheet; (vi) in awarding marks for co-curricular activities one mark shall be credited for each of the certificates mentioned below:- (a) a certificate that he/she has represented the district in State level games, sports, issued by district level sports authority. (b) A certificate that he/she has shown excellence in cultural activities representing the district in State level competitions issued by district level authority. (c) Minimum ‘A’ certificate of National Cadet Corps. (b) A certificate that he/she has shown excellence in cultural activities representing the district in State level competitions issued by district level authority. (c) Minimum ‘A’ certificate of National Cadet Corps. (d) A certificate of successful participation in literating the illiterates by a district level officer, and (e) A diploma/certificate in Music/Arts and Craft on completion of a course of at least one year’s duration from any University/recognized Government Institutions: Provided that the maximum of such marks to be credited shall not exceed five. (vii) 18 (eighteen) marks shall be credited for academic qualification to an eligible candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category who has required qualification as mentioned in sub-rule (e) of rule 6. Awarding of marks for training, interview and cocurricular activities shall be done I accordance with clauses (iv), (v) and (vi) respectively. (c) (i) The total marks obtained by each candidate for academic qualification, training and co-curricular activities shall be computed in the manner prescribed in clauses (iii), (iv) and (vi), and a list of names of all candidates of each category, namely, Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribe, physically handicapped and others shall be prepared in descending order of total marks obtained by them. (ii) The Staff Selection Committee, in its meeting shall finalize the total number of candidates from the top of the lists mentioned in clause (I) of sub-rule ©, to be called for interview. The number of candidates to be called for interview shall be five times the number of vacancies unless the total number of candidates is insufficient for the same. (iii) The candidates selected for interview shall be intimated the date, time and place for their interview. (d) After the interview all the scores shall be recorded and the marks obtained by a candidate shall be added up and the names of candidates shall be arranged according to marks obtained in a descending order. (e) After the process as laid down in sub-rule (b) is complete, the Selection Committee shall arrange the names serially down form the top of the list. A panel of such number of candidates as there are vacancies plus 10% of such vacancies shall be prepared. The reservation for Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and physically handicapped persons shall have to be strictly maintained in the panel. The panel shall show separately names of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Caste, Physically handicapped, and other eligible candidates. A panel of such number of candidates as there are vacancies plus 10% of such vacancies shall be prepared. The reservation for Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and physically handicapped persons shall have to be strictly maintained in the panel. The panel shall show separately names of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Caste, Physically handicapped, and other eligible candidates. (f) Thereafter, the panel thus prepared shall be placed in the meeting of the Council for passing and the total number of eligible candidates included in the panel shall be the same as the number of vacancies plus 10% of such existing vacancies.” Therefore, any selection process initiated and/or commenced after the said notified date is required to be undertaken by following the provisions of the Recruitment and Leave Rules, 1991 and not otherwise. The report annexed to the affidavit in compliance is categorical that the selection process was undertaken by following the 1940 Rules which stood repealed on the date of coming in force of the Recruitment and Leave Rules 1991. The Division Bench in case of Medinipore Zila Nimna Buniadi Shiksha Prathistan samiti (supra) held that there were gross irregularities in regard to the preparation of the panel so far as Medinipore district is concerned and directed the Director of the School Education to consider the matter afresh having due regard to the report of the special officers and in the event, irregularities are apparent shall recast the panel accordingly. The Apex Court modified the said order by quashing the said panel and directed the respective Board/Council to prepare afresh panel in accordance with law. The panel which is impugned herein was also the subject matter of another writ petition Chittaranjan Bhunya (supra) and it is categorically held that what was intended by the Apex Court while using the expression “in accordance with law” is that the selection process must have been undertaken and guided by the Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teacher, 1991 in following words: “The petitioners had challenged the preparation of panel of 1996 for the post of Assistant Teachers, Primary Education in the district of Midnapore. It is needful to say at this juncture that originally prior to this 1973 Act there were two separate Acts i.e. Bengal Rural Primary Education Act, 1930 and West Bengal Urban Primary Education Act, 1963 and rules were framed under those two Acts. It is needful to say at this juncture that originally prior to this 1973 Act there were two separate Acts i.e. Bengal Rural Primary Education Act, 1930 and West Bengal Urban Primary Education Act, 1963 and rules were framed under those two Acts. In 1973, when the new Act came into force rulers were not framed. Ultimately, rulers were framed in the year 1991. One latest amendment of said rules have come in the year 2002. All these rules included the procedure for preparation of panel and recruitment of Primary Teachers. I think or rather I am convinced that the instant case will be guided by Recruitment & Leave Rules of Primary Teachers, which came into force on 22.11.1991.” The selection process is required to be undertaken under the Recruitment and Leave Rules of 1991 is further fortified in the said judgment in these words: “Whether the rules were followed i.e. R.6, R.7, R.8 or R.9 etc in preparing the panel is absolutely a scrutiny of fact. There is no doubt that Director of School Education is the final approval authority in case of a Primary Teachers’ panel and if it is question of appreciation of documents-on-record and rather evidentiary value of those records, then in my view, this cannot be done by High Court. The Director of School Education is the most competent person who can decide whether rules have been followed in preparing the panel or selecting the candidates. The Director can see their age documents, their qualifications and marking in oral interview. The director can also see whether, it has been made in regular process or not. In such circumstances I think that this Court should not interfere at this stage that means after ten years of the panel being prepared.” The Hon’ble Single Bench concluded by directing the Director of the School Education to hold an inquiry by framing a committee and shall, thereafter, recast the panel by placing the writ petitioners therein in their right position, in the event an illegality is found by the said authority. The said order attained finality in absence of any challenge by the council or at the instance of the State and more particularly, when a mandamus appeal at the instance of the writ petitioners thereto were dismissed by the Division Bench. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is to be respected by another Co-ordinate Bench. The said order attained finality in absence of any challenge by the council or at the instance of the State and more particularly, when a mandamus appeal at the instance of the writ petitioners thereto were dismissed by the Division Bench. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is to be respected by another Co-ordinate Bench. The judicial discipline demands that in the event of disagreement with the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench, the other Coordinate Bench, in stead of venturing to decide the issue, should refer the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for determination by constituting a larger bench. Taking into the above settled proposition of law, I do not find any justification and/or reason to disagree with the findings and/or judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in case of Chitta Ranjan Bhunia & Ors (supra). It is galore from the said report that the selection committee awarded equal marks to a candidate having B.T or B.ED degree as has been awarded to a Teacher Training Certificate holders. The Supreme Court in case of Dilip Kumar Ghosh and Ors.(supra) held that the B.ED curricular deals with the subject like the principle of educational curricular studies, educational psychology, development of education, social organization and instructional methods but it does not include a subject like a child psychology. It is further held that the rules framed for Recruitment of Teachers of the Primary School were designated to give an appointment to specifically trained person who can teach at the elementary level and held : “10. The Rules, as noticed above, were framed primarily for recruitment of teachers for primary school and the Rules were designed to give an incentive to the teachers who are specifically trained to teach in primary schools. The rationale behind the framing of this Rule is that JBT/PTTC certificate trained teachers should be appointed so that they can impart proper education to the primary school students in terms of the aims and object with a trained hand. The Rules purposely laid an emphasis that all the candidates for teachers in primary schools who possessed JBT/PTTC should be appointed for the development of the child. The primary education is up to 4th standard. There is a middle education and then secondary and higher secondary education. For teaching in the primary school, therefore, one must know the child psychology and development of a child at a tender age. The primary education is up to 4th standard. There is a middle education and then secondary and higher secondary education. For teaching in the primary school, therefore, one must know the child psychology and development of a child at a tender age. As already noticed, the candidates like the appellants who are trained in BEd degree are not necessarily to be equipped to teach the students of primary class. They are not trained and equipped to understand the psychology of a child of tender age. 13. What emerges from the above interpretation of the Rules, curriculum, syllabus for appointment of teachers in primary schools are these: “(i) In the case of the junior basic training and primary teachers training certificate the emphasis is on the development of the child. The primary education is up to IVth standard. Thereafter there is middle education and then the secondary and higher secondary education. But in the primary school one has to study the psychology and development of child at a tender age. The person who is trained in BEd degree may not necessarily be equipped to teach a student of primary class because he is not equipped to understand the psychology of a child at that early stage. (ii) This is only peculiar to the curriculum of the junior basic training course and primary teachers training certificate course. Therefore, looking to the curriculum one can appreciate the distinction between the two courses and the same policy is reflected in the Rules framed by the State in exercise of its statutory power. (iii) To accept a proposition that a candidate who holds a BEd degree, that is, higher degree cannot be deprived appointment to the post of primary school teacher would negate the aims and objects of the Rules for the purpose for which it is framed. (iv) These Rules were framed primarily for recruitment of the teachers for primary schools and in that context the Rules were designed to give credit to the candidates who are specifically trained to teach in primary schools. The idea behind the framing of these Rules was that the junior basic training and primary teachers training certificate trained teachers should be appointed so that they can impart proper education to the child of tender age who requires an expert and tending hand. The idea behind the framing of these Rules was that the junior basic training and primary teachers training certificate trained teachers should be appointed so that they can impart proper education to the child of tender age who requires an expert and tending hand. (v) There is prohibition contained in Rule 6(d) that no extra credit shall be given for higher qualification.” 14. Having said so, we are also of the view that the decision involving the present controversy is no more res integra. In the case of Medical Council of India v. State of Rajasthan the Division Bench of this Court considered an identical question with regard to the registration as medical practitioner of the Medical Council Act of 1956. This Court held that the qualification of MBBS is a condition precedent for a candidate being registered in the State Medical Register maintained by the State Board. In that case the second respondent though possessed MSc (Biochemistry) which was the higher qualification included in the Schedule but this Court held that unless the second respondent had qualified in medicine he was not eligible to register as a medical practitioner. 15. In the case of P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala the facts are identical to the facts of the case in hand. In that case also the posts were advertised for recruitment to the post of lower primary/upper primary teachers in government schools. The qualifications prescribed for the post in the advertisement published in the Official Gazette notification was “pass in TTC” which means trained teachers. Instead of selecting holders of TTC candidate, the candidates holding BEd degree were selected on the ground that BEd is a higher qualification than TTC. This Court held that in terms of the advertisement BEd degree-holders were not eligible for selection. This Court further held that fixation of qualification for a particular post is a matter of recruitment policy. This Court held at SCC p. 546, para 10: “10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that BEd qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the BEd candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. This Court held at SCC p. 546, para 10: “10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that BEd qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the BEd candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of the applicants, it is pointed out before us that trained teachers certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for BEd degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. BEd degree-holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or Bed qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers as only TTC and not BEd. Whether BEd qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider BEd candidates, for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible.” 16. The same view was reiterated in the case of Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi.” It is shocking that a person who were sponsored under the general category were included in the panel of the Schedule Caste Category. There is no hesitation in my mind that the selection was undertaken by adopting the pick and chose policy and some of the persons have been favoured whereas the deserving and rightful candidates have been deprived. I am not unmindful of the present situation that the persons who have been rendering services for considerable period would be harshly effected if the entire selection process is to be undertaken de novo. It is equally true that not only the ineligible persons have been included in the panel but the entire recruitment process had been conducted in clear contravention to the order passed in Chittaranjan Bhunia (supra). The Court should not be a moot spectator and shall allow the irregularities to remain. Keeping in mind the above, the recasting would not be a proper and the entire recruitment process should be undertaken de novo. I, therefore, quashed and set aside the entire recruitment process and the panel prepared thereupon. The Court should not be a moot spectator and shall allow the irregularities to remain. Keeping in mind the above, the recasting would not be a proper and the entire recruitment process should be undertaken de novo. I, therefore, quashed and set aside the entire recruitment process and the panel prepared thereupon. I direct the authorities to initiate the proceeding in the light of the observation made in Chittaranjan Bhunia’s judgment amongst the candidates who were considered in the said recruitment process if some of the appointed candidates are found ineligible to be included in the panel, the authority would forthwith terminate their appointments and shall give the appointments to the eligible candidates forthwith. The authorities while doing so shall also grant the notional benefit to the eligible candidates who have been included in the panel in place of those ineligible candidates and such notional benefit shall be given form the date of the appointment of the non-deserving candidates. The entire process should be completed by the authority concerned within ten weeks from the date of the communications of this judgment. Till the preparation of panel afresh is made, the persons who are continuing in service shall remain to continue the same and shall be paid of admissible benefits. The writ petition is thus disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.