Judgment Sahidullah Munshi, J. This writ application has been filed challenging a memo being No.11/G dated 16th January, 2006 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Malda, whereby the District Inspector of Schools, while giving a decision in respect of grant of approval to the panel for the post of clerk of Mitna High School, has also cancelled the same. In brief, the petitioner’s case is as follows: Owing to the vacancy in the post of clerk at Mitna High School, Director of School Education sanctioned the post of clerk at Mitna High School, P.O. Talsur, district Malda by his memo No.S19/1(19) SC.14 dated 1st February, 2001. After the sanction of the post, an interview was held on 21st September, 2003 for recruitment of a clerk wherein the petitioner stood first and, accordingly, a panel was prepared by the Selection Committee. After the Selection Committee prepared the panel, the same was forwarded by the Managing Committee of the school to the District Inspector of Schools, Malda for its approval on 1st October, 2003. The panel, however, being not considered by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Malda, a representation was made to the District Inspector of Schools by the petitioner on 13th November, 2003 and requested for grant of approval to the said panel. The Secretary of School, however, also made a representation on 15th December, 2003 but to no effect. The petitioner moved a writ petition being W.P. No.1339(W) of 2004 and in pursuance of an order passed by this Hon’ble Court, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Malda, passed the impugned order on 16th January, 2006 thereby rejecting the prayer for approval of the panel for the post of clerk and, consequently, rejected the panel itself. The said order of rejection has been communicated by the District Inspector of Schools to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection issued by the District Inspector of Schools the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition and has prayed for necessary orders to set aside the impugned order dated 16th January, 2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Malda. A supplementary affidavit, affirmed on 17th November, 2014, has been filed in Court in order to bring on record a memo dated 1st November, 2001 to show that the post was sanctioned by the Director of School Education. A supplementary affidavit, affirmed on 17th November, 2014, has been filed in Court in order to bring on record a memo dated 1st November, 2001 to show that the post was sanctioned by the Director of School Education. The supplementary affidavit has been taken on record. While passing the impugned order the District Inspector of Schools has observed that the panel cannot be approved because the recruitment process was conducted without following the recruitment rules and that no prior permission was obtained by the school authority. Therefore, the panel which was prepared, cannot be sustained. To contradict the said stand taken by the District Inspector of Schools the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that from the supplementary affidavit it will appear that the Director of School Education sanctioned the post and since the District Inspector of Schools is placed higher to the rank of District Inspector of Schools, no further permission of the District Inspector of Schools is required to be obtained before holding the interview and preparing the panel. The learned advocate for the petitioner has cited a few decisions to argue that recruitment rules are only guidelines issued by the Department of Education and infraction of those guidelines would not tantamount to violation of the rules because these guidelines are only directory in nature and violation thereof does not entail any penal consequence and if it does not entail any penal consequence non-compliance of the said guidelines does not vitiate the recruitment process. According to him, even without prior permission being obtained from the District Inspector of Schools the panel which has been prepared can validly stand and the District Inspector of Schools should have approved the same instead of rejecting the prayer for approval. The first decision relied on by the learned advocate of the petitioner in the case of Rabindra Nath Mahata –Vs.- State of West Bengal reported in 2005(2) CLJ(Cal) (Full Bench) and relying on paragraph 12 thereof he submits that even if a person appears before the Selection Committee without his name being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the candidate cannot be excluded for consideration merely because his name has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The second decision the learned advocate cited is in the case of Khejuri Guruprasad Balika Vidyaniketan & Anr. – Vs. – State of West Bengal & Ors. The second decision the learned advocate cited is in the case of Khejuri Guruprasad Balika Vidyaniketan & Anr. – Vs. – State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2003)1 CAL LT 391(HC) and relying upon paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment he tries to impress that guidelines issued by the Director of School Education cannot be considered as mandatory one. The facts and circumstances of the above reported judgment passed in the case of Sri Rabindra Nath Mahata (supra) is somehow different from the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Nothing is available from the writ petition as to whether the petitioner’s name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange or not at all or whether any advertisement was issued in the newspaper or not is also not appearing. It has only been stated in the writ petition that there was an advertisement in the notice board and in pursuance thereof the petitioner sat for the interview and his name appeared in the first position in the panel. So far the second cited case is concerned by the judgment it has been held that there was no wilful departure from the terms of the guidelines and the Managing Committee of the school honestly and faithfully performed their duties in substantial particulars. Therefore, a minor infraction from the guidelines, if it is technical, can be avoided. But it is not the case of the petitioner that there was any such minor deviation from the guidelines in the present case. I, therefore, hold that these two judgments have no bearing on the present case. The respondent No.3, the District Inspector of Schools, has contested the case by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. The learned advocate appearing for the State submits that without prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools and without following the recruitment rules and regulations the concerned school authority ought not to have proceeded for recruitment of temporary clerk on ad hoc basis. The respondent No.3, the District Inspector of Schools, has contested the case by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. The learned advocate appearing for the State submits that without prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools and without following the recruitment rules and regulations the concerned school authority ought not to have proceeded for recruitment of temporary clerk on ad hoc basis. In support of his submission he relies upon a circular being memo No.1380 (20)-G.A. dated 27th September, 1996 and relying on the said circular he draws the attention of the Court that without taking prior permission from the competent authority and without following the recruitment rules and regulations as laid down from time to time any steps taken for appointment of non-teaching staff will tantamount to gross violation of existing rules and regulations and in such cases Government will have no alternative but to take necessary steps including stoppage of releasing grants in favour of those schools having done so. The said circular has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition as R-1. This circular has been issued by the Director of School Education as a clarificatory circular and so a caution has been made to all concerned particularly that the Managing Committee should not override or misuse their powers as conferred in them in case of appointment and the circular directed not to engage any teaching or non-teaching staff on any plea without following existing recruitment rules and regulations. The learned advocate appearing for the State has also placed reliance on a Government circular being Memo No.1736(21) G.A. dated 1st November, 1999 which is the guidelines for recruitment of non-teaching staff (Librarian, Clerk, Group-D staff) of non-Government aided Secondary Schools, Higher Secondary Schools, Government sponsored Schools, D.A. getting School and all types of aided Madrassahs including senior Madrassahs and newly set up educational Institutions at Secondary level in West Bengal. Relevant rules from the said guidelines may be quoted below :- “3(a) when any vacancy occurs against any sanctioned post in any recognized and aided schools, Madrassahs or in any new set up school/Madrassah. The Management of these Institutions shall approach the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education (S.E.) for their permission for taking steps for appointment with relevant papers. Relevant rules from the said guidelines may be quoted below :- “3(a) when any vacancy occurs against any sanctioned post in any recognized and aided schools, Madrassahs or in any new set up school/Madrassah. The Management of these Institutions shall approach the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education (S.E.) for their permission for taking steps for appointment with relevant papers. D.I. of Schools (SE) shall sponsor up to three eligible candidates from the death-in-harness category if there are such names in the register in order to be counted from the date of registration along with prior permission. However, in case of a vacancy arising in a school where a deceased non-teaching staff had been working prior to his/her death, the names of the eligible ward of that deceased non-teaching staff if his or her educational qualification suits, shall be sponsored by the D.I. of School (S.E.) irrespective of seniority made under the death-in-harness category. b) The Management of the school shall consider the candidature of the sponsored candidates from death-in-harness category within 30 days from the receipt of the prior permission as per procedure laid down below and prepare a panel and forward the same to the D.I. of Schools (S.E.) within 15 days of the date of interview. A one-man panel shall be prepared in case there is only one candidate in the death-in-harness category. If there is no candidate in death-in-harness category, the D.I. of Schools (S.E.) shall permit the school to obtain names from the Employment Exchange. c) for appointment in short-term vacancies of 4 months or less the school shall invite applications issue notice which shall be disclosed in the notice board of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.)/ the Zilla Parisad of the Panchayat Samity, the Municipal Corporation notified or authority and of the school allowing 15 days’ time for submission of the applications of the candidates from the date of notification. d) ……………… e) For recruitment to any non-teaching post-academic qualification as per existing G.O. shall be mentioned by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) in the prior permission. d) ……………… e) For recruitment to any non-teaching post-academic qualification as per existing G.O. shall be mentioned by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) in the prior permission. 4a) On receipt of the prior permission of the school stage from the D.I. of Schools (S.E.) the school authorities shall approach the local Employment Exchange for sponsoring the names of the Employment Exchange candidates.” Pointing out to the aforesaid circular the learned advocate for the State submits that various anomalies are apparent on the face of the record and, accordingly, the impugned order has been passed. Learned advocate has also drawn the attention of the Court to a memo dated 22nd April, 2004 being Annexure R-2 to the said affidavit-in-opposition but the facts recorded therein are not clear and even there is no reflection thereof is available in the impugned order. The facts disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition and reasons given in the order impugned does not match each other. That apart, the impugned order is a non-speaking one and does not disclose any detailed reason save and except that no prior permission was obtained. It is also not ascertained from the impugned order whether the same has been passed after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and it has not been justified how the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.1339 (W) of 2004 has been complied with in its true spirit. That being so, I hold that the impugned order being memo No.11/G dated 16th June, 2006, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Malda, is not sustainable in law and, accordingly, I set aside the said memo with a direction upon the said District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Malda to pass a detailed and reasoned order and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. Such reasoned order shall be passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Malda within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order and after passing the order the District Inspector of Schools shall communicate a copy of this decision to the petitioner within a period of 15 days. The writ petitioner will, however, be at liberty to make further representation giving details about her recruitment as a clerk and if she wishes she can also place further documents and judgments of Court at the time of hearing. The writ petitioner will, however, be at liberty to make further representation giving details about her recruitment as a clerk and if she wishes she can also place further documents and judgments of Court at the time of hearing. This writ petition is disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be delivered to the learned counsel for the parties, upon compliance of all usual formalities.