Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 542 (CAL)

Debraj Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

2014-06-20

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. 1. This writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order impugned passed by the Director of School Education, West Bengal dated 11th December, 2006 wherein the Director of School Education decided that panel prepared by three-member Selection Committee is valid and there is no illegality in approving the panel prepared by the said Selection Committee. It was further held that panel could be prepared in presence of at least three members out of five members of Selection Committee as per Rule 3(d) under Government memo No.1628-GA/OM-18/2001 dated Kolkata, 10th July, 2002. 2. The writ petitioner is an approved assistant teacher of Bongaon Kabi Keshablal Vidyapith (H.S.), Bongaon. Petitioner is having post-graduate and also B.Ed. qualification. The post of assistant headmaster was sanctioned by Director of School Education vide memo dated 13th August, 2004. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), (North) 24-Parganas granted prior permission to fill up the said post by his memo dated 10th November, 2005. Petitioner being aspirant to appear in the selection process submitted application to participate in the interview. Although the petitioner applied for contesting as a candidate, he did not appear before the selection committee formed for such selection. The school authorities formed a selection committee of five members as per their resolution. In the Selection Committee one Sri Anuj Baran Sarkar being the teachers' representative was taken as a member. Since the teacher-in-charge himself was an applicant for the post of assistant headmaster he could not become a member of the Selection Committee and accordingly, his place remained vacant. The Governing Body in its meeting dated 6th December, 2005 took a decision to constitute the Selection Committee consisting of four members since Sri Nilratan Biswas being the Secretary and working as teacher-in-charge applied for contesting in the Selection process, could not be a member and his place was kept vacant. Sri Anuj Baran Sarkar was selected and taken as teachers' representative, Sri Sevak Ghosh was selected as guardians' representative and the name of the expert was to be settled in the meeting to be held on 14th December, 2005. In the meeting of 6th December, 2005 all the three teachers' representatives namely, Anuj Sarkar, Himangshu Majumdar and Vidyasagar Ghosh were present. In the meeting of 6th December, 2005 all the three teachers' representatives namely, Anuj Sarkar, Himangshu Majumdar and Vidyasagar Ghosh were present. On 14th December, 2005 when the name of the expert was selected, all the three teachers' representatives were also present and unanimous decision was taken as regards the members of the selection committee who will take interview. Sri Anuj Sarkar's name was selected as teachers' representative. Interview date was already published and fixed on 21st January, 2006. All the interview letters were issued to the intending candidates including the petitioner who is to appear on 21st January, 2006. Suddenly on 23rd December, 2006 Anuj Sarkar who was one of the members of four-member Selection Committee expressed his willingness to appear at the interview to be held for the post of an assistant headmaster. The Secretary after discussion with members allowed Mr. Anuj Baran Sarkar to appear at the interview and a decision was taken to keep the place of teachers' representative vacant since constitution of Selection Committee with three members is valid as per Rules and it was also recorded in the minutes of the meeting that interview date was already finalised and published. Therefore, the Authorities decided to keep three-member Selection Committee for taking interview. In all these meetings held by the Managing Committee, Himangshu Majumdar was all along present and he was aware of such formation of Selection Committee and he is also aware of date fixed for taking interview. On the scheduled date interview was held but the petitioner did not appear in the interview. Three-member Committee prepared a panel and sent it to the Assistant District Inspector of Schools. The Assistant District Inspector of Schools did not take any decision of approval. Private respondent, being the respondent no.6 herein, moved before this Hon'ble Court so that the concerned authority decide upon the panel prepared by the Selection Committee. This Hon'ble Court passed an order for taking a decision. The concerned authority took decision and approved the panel on 17th April, 2006. On 28th April, 2006 the private respondent No.6 was appointed as headmaster. The writ petitioner came up before this Court and questioned the approval of panel prepared on 21st January, 2006 for the post of headmaster in the aforementioned school. The concerned authority took decision and approved the panel on 17th April, 2006. On 28th April, 2006 the private respondent No.6 was appointed as headmaster. The writ petitioner came up before this Court and questioned the approval of panel prepared on 21st January, 2006 for the post of headmaster in the aforementioned school. The writ petition being W.P. 10607(W) of 2006 filed by the writ petitioner was disposed of by an order dated 3rd May, 2006 directing the Director of School Education to dispose of the representation of the petitioner filed on 21st April, 2006 within a period of five weeks from the date of communication of the order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent no.3 or its representatives as well as the respondent nos.5 and 6 and thereafter shall pass a reasoned order within one week from the date of hearing. There was further direction to communicate the order to the parties within a period of seven days from the date of passing reasoned order. If records are sought for by the respondent no.2 those shall be produced by the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 and the respondent no.2 was directed to deal with the same in his reasoned order. Till such decision, status quo as on 3rd May, 2006 be maintained as regards service of the private respondent no.6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 3rd May, 2006 the concerned Director of School Education heard this matter on three occasions i.e. 8th August, 2006, 14th November, 2006 and 7th February, 2006 and thereafter passed the order impugned dated 11th December, 2006 and decided the representation of the petitioner dated 21st April, 2006. After elaborate discussion and analysis of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties the Director of School Education decided that there is no illegality in formation of selection committee nor even in preparation of panel by three-member Selection Committee since it is permissible under the Rules and further no illegality is there in approving such panel. 3. Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P. No.201(W) of 2008 submits that the formation of Selection Committee is contrary to Rules. According to him, under rule 3(a) Constitution of Selection Committee should be of five members and according to Mr. Chatterjee, teachers' representative must be included in the Selection Committee. 3. Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P. No.201(W) of 2008 submits that the formation of Selection Committee is contrary to Rules. According to him, under rule 3(a) Constitution of Selection Committee should be of five members and according to Mr. Chatterjee, teachers' representative must be included in the Selection Committee. In this case teacher's representative was excluded from the Selection Committee. 4. Mr. Chatterjee submits admittedly the writ petitioner did not appear. According to Mr. Chatterjee, petitioner had his objection against formation of the Selection Committee. It was submitted by him that since teachers' representative was excluded from the Selection Committee, the Constitution of the Selection Committee is invalid and contrary to the provisions under rule 3(a) applicable for Constitution of Selection Committee. 5. Mr. Chatterjee then submits that Rule 3(d) prescribes the quorum and as per Rule 3(d) at least three members of the Committee should be present only when the Constitution is valid. Mr. Chatterjee further submits that there is also mistake in awarding and calculation of marks. According to him, proper calculation of marks was not done as per the rules. He submits the entire process is vitiated. According to him, after formation of the Selection Committee, when the teachers' representative was willing to compete the selection process, the other teachers' representative ought to have been included. 6. Mr. Chatterjee submits that on 21st April, 2006 the petitioner objected and that objection was not decided by the appropriate authority. The private respondent no.6 came up before this Court and on the basis of an order obtained by him approval was given and respondent no.6 was appointed as headmaster ignoring the allegations raised by the writ petitioner in his representation. 7. Mr. Chatterjee submits that unless the Selection Committee is formed properly the selection is vitiated and the selection, approval and appointment should be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 8. Mr. Chatterjee cited one judgement in support of his contention which is reported in 1990 (4) S.C.C. 510 (Dr. Triloki Nath Singh v. Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra and ors.). 9. Mr. Chatterjee submits that unless the Selection Committee is formed properly the selection is vitiated and the selection, approval and appointment should be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 8. Mr. Chatterjee cited one judgement in support of his contention which is reported in 1990 (4) S.C.C. 510 (Dr. Triloki Nath Singh v. Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra and ors.). 9. Mr. Chatterjee submits that in the aforementioned case candidates were interviewed by a Selection Committee consisting of Vice-Chancellor of the University, Head of the Department of Hindi and Modern Indian Languages Lucknow University and three Head of Department of Hindi as External Experts but as per requirement Linguistic expert was not included in the Selection Committee. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that experts in Hindi literature are not linguistic experts. Thus, the Selection Committee was not formed properly and accordingly its recommendation should not be acted upon. 10. Mr. De, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent submits that it is not in controversy that as per Rule 3(a) Selection Committee should be formed by five members. 11. In the instant case one of the members of the Selection Committee was taken from the teachers' representative of the school. As per resolution of the Managing Committee Anuj Baran Sarkar was taken as teachers' representative and that was finalised. Since the teacher-in-charge was an applicant his place was vacant and there is no scope to fill up the same. Suddenly and surprisingly when the Selection Committee was formed taking Anuj Baran Sarkar as teachers' representative, on 23rd December, 2005 Anuj Baran Sarkar applied before the Managing Committee for allowing him to appear before the Selection Committee. The Secretary of the Managing Committee was very sympathetic and he allowed the teachers' representative Mr. Anuj Baran Sarkar to take part in the selection process. Accordingly, three-member Selection Committee was scheduled to take interview. 12. Mr. De submits that there is no illegality in formation of selection committee. Selection Committee was formed as per Rules. According to him, since Anuj Baran Sarkar, being a member of the Selection Committee as teachers' representative opted for contesting as a candidate, three-member Committee took interview and prepared a panel. 13. Mr. De submits it is permissible under the Rules i.e. Rule 3(d) which stipulates that penal shall be prepared in presence of at least three members out of five members of the Selection Committee. 14. 13. Mr. De submits it is permissible under the Rules i.e. Rule 3(d) which stipulates that penal shall be prepared in presence of at least three members out of five members of the Selection Committee. 14. According to Mr. De, Selection Committee was formed in which teachers' representative was there and there is no illegality in such formation. Since one of the Selection Committee members appeared in the interview, three members of the Selection Committee took interview which cannot vitiate the formation of the Selection Committee nor the selection process. 15. Mr. De submits that all three teachers' representatives including Himangshu Majumdar were present in all these meetings. The petitioner also did not appear at the interview. 16. According to Mr. De, since the petitioner did not appear in the interview he should not be allowed to question the formation of Selection Committee or the selection process. 17. Mr. De submits that the writ petitioner is well aware of this meeting and resolution and he himself kept silent till before 21st April, 2006. 18. Mr. De submits that the writ petitioner waived his right, if at all there be any, and he has come up before this Court at a belated stage. 19. Mr. De submits the writ petitioner never questioned formation of the Selection Committee before 21st January, 2006. According to Mr. De neither the petitioner questioned the formation of the Selection Committee nor he has raised any question about such formation before any other authority before the date of holding interview. 20. According to Mr. De, there is no defect in formation of the Selection Committee and the panel prepared by three-member Selection Committee is lawful and valid. He also submits that these allegations involve all disputed questions of facts and these facts were considered and decided by the Director of School Education. This Hon'ble Court should not enter into those factual findings in this writ proceeding. He submits the writ petitioner was absent from the school on account of his illness which was found by the Director of School Education. He also did not appear at the selection process. Therefore, he cannot come and question the formation of the Selection Committee and also the panel prepared by the Selection Committee as well as its approval and appointment of private respondent as assistant headmaster of the school. 21. He also did not appear at the selection process. Therefore, he cannot come and question the formation of the Selection Committee and also the panel prepared by the Selection Committee as well as its approval and appointment of private respondent as assistant headmaster of the school. 21. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. It appears to this Court that the concerned Director of School Education very carefully considered the submissions and objections raised on behalf of the writ petitioner and has come to a definite conclusion that there is no illegality in preparation of panel by three-member Selection Committee in the facts and circumstances of this case. He has elaborately discussed and passed a well reasoned order which reads as follows:- " In compliance with the order of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta as passed by the Hon'ble Justice Soumitra Pal on 03-05-2006 in W.P. No.10607(W) of 2006 the matter was taken up for final hearing on 24-4-2007 by intimating all concerned vide office Memo No.251/1(5)-LS dated 08-03-2007 after successive hearing on 08-08-2006, 14-11-2006 and 07-02-2006 of the matter for disposing of the representation of the petitioner filed on 21-04- 2006 as was directed thereon in the said judgement dated 3-5-2006. Swhri Ashim Kumar Halder, Learned Advocate for the School Authority, Shri Ranajit Chatterjee, Learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Shibdas Bhattacharyya, Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Bangaon Sub Division and Shri Subhas Chandra Giri, Assistant Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24 Parganas were present and heard. The instant writ petition was filed challenging the legality of the constitution of Selection Committee in respect of appointment of Assistant Headmaster at the Bongaon Kabi Keshablal Vidyapith (H.S.) for which the interview was held on 21-01-2006 after receiving the prior permission issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24-Parganas vide its No.1219/G dated 10-11-2005. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the main contention of the writ petition was that the Selection Committee for appointment of Assistant headmaster was formed with three members instead of five as it required as per recruitment rules. Actually in the said Selection Committee there was no Teacher's Representative at all. He also added that Sri Anuj Sarkar, Shri Himangshu Majumdar and Vidyasagar Ghosh were the teacher representatives of the duly constituted Managing Committee of the School. Actually in the said Selection Committee there was no Teacher's Representative at all. He also added that Sri Anuj Sarkar, Shri Himangshu Majumdar and Vidyasagar Ghosh were the teacher representatives of the duly constituted Managing Committee of the School. Shri Anuj Sarkar and Shri Vidyasagar Ghosh, being the applicant for the post of Assistant Headmaster, it is obvious that Shri Himangshu Majumdar would have to act as the Teacher Representative. But upon Himangshu Majumdar a false trick was made by the authority concerned by sending the blank envelop to him so that he could not know the date of the interview and made his presence in the Selection Committee. Mr. Himangshu Majumdar wrote several letters to the Teacher in-charge as well as to the Secretary of the school for giving the information about the date of the interview so that he may present as Teacher Representative in the Selection committee, but no fruitful result was resulted. The Learned Advocate for the school authority submitted in details as to why there were three members in the Selection Committee instead of five. His clarifications were as follows :- (1) Teacher-in-Charge of the school was himself a participant in the interview for the selection of Assistant Headmaster. So, his name was not included in the Selection Committee. (2) The Teacher Representatives Shri Anuj Sarkar and Shri Vidyasagar Ghosh were also the participants in the interview for selection of Assistant Headmaster of the school. Actually what had been happened was that Shri Anuj Sarkar was first selected to act as T.R. in the Selection Committee since he was a non-applicant and accordingly the meeting dated 6-12-2005 took the decision to constitute the Selection Committee with the following persons : Shri Nilratan Biswas-Secretary TIC being applicant - vacant TR - Shri Anuj Sarkar Guardian Representative - Sri Sevak Ghosh Expert - will be settled in the next meeting to be held on 14-12-2005. It may be mentioned here that in the said meeting of 6-12-2005, all the three Teachers' Representatives were present. It may be mentioned here that in the said meeting of 6-12-2005, all the three Teachers' Representatives were present. On 14-12-2005, when the name of the expert was selected, all the three Teacher's representatives were even present and decision was taken unanimously who will at as the members of the Selection Committee wherein still then Shri Anuj Sarkar's name was selected as the Teacher's Representative (i.e. T.R.) But on 23-12-2006, Shri Anuj Sarkar expressed his willingness to appear at the interview for filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster and the Secretary allowed Shri Anuj Sarkar to be appeared at the said interview as well as decision was taken to keep the place of TR vacant since constitution of Selection Committee with three members is valid. Moreover since the interview date was selected already, the prayer of Himangshu Biswas to act as T.R. was not considered for the reason that the entire proceedings should be changed then. The charge of sending blank envelop is quite baseless because Shri Himangshu Biswas was all along present in the meeting of the Managing Committee for Selection of Expert, selection of date of interview etc. He himself had even put his signature also in the meeting Register. So it is obvious that he knew all the pros and cons of the interview. Regarding protest of illegal constitution of the Selection Committee Sri Debraj Sarkar's submission of writ petition seems to be incorrect as because there are no signification shown by him in his writ petition and annexure that he remained absent in the interview due to illegal constitution of the Selection Committee. Sri Debraj Sarkar i.e. the petitioner herein was absent in the school due to his illness with effect from 18-01-2006 to 27-01-2006 (10 days) and due to that he remained absent in the interview though he was well aware that the date of interview was on 21-01-2006. So, it seems that the petitioner has lost his rights to challenge the Selection procedure as well as to claim for the post of Assistant Headmaster. So, it seems that the petitioner has lost his rights to challenge the Selection procedure as well as to claim for the post of Assistant Headmaster. The Learned Advocate for the petitioner quoting the paragraphs 15 and 16 of the instant writ petition further submitted that his client i.e. the petitioner came to know that Respondent no.6 had filed a writ petition being no.3477(W) of 2006 and had obtained an order on 6-3-2006 directing the District Inspector of Schools (SE), 24-Parganas (North) Barasat to take a decision regarding the approval of the panel dated 21-01-2006 prepared for the post of Assistant Headmaster of the school concerned within a period of four weeks. But on or about 17-04-2006 the Respondent Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Bangaon Sub Division wrongly and illegally approved the said illegal panel in question acting on the basis of the said referred order of the Hon'ble Court dated 6-3-2006 in W.P. No.3477(W) of 2006 although there was no mandatory direction on any statutory Respondent to approve the said panel. The Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE) Bongaon submitted that the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 06-3-2006 was binding upon the Respondent No.3 in W.P. No.3477(W) of 2006 i.e. the District Inspector of Schools (SE), 24-Parganas (North). So, the submission of the Learned Advocate for the petitioner is not correct that the approval of the said panel had wrongly been accorded by him. Actually the panel had been approved by him as per instruction of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24- Parganas vide Memo No.353/H(Law) dated 13-4-2006 in view of the said order of the Hon'ble Court dated 6-3-2006 with the condition as was imposed thereon by the said instruction of the said District Inspector of Schools after verification of all papers of the panel which were found in order. The representative of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24- Parganas also admitted the fact. The Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Bongaon Sub-Division on query further submitted that the guidelines for recruitment of Assistant Headmaster as laid down in Govt. Notification No.1628-GA dated 10-07-2002 have been observed here by the School Authority in preparing the panel in question and after satisfying about the same as in order by verification of all papers, the office had approved the panel under Memo No.442/G dated 18-4-2006. Notification No.1628-GA dated 10-07-2002 have been observed here by the School Authority in preparing the panel in question and after satisfying about the same as in order by verification of all papers, the office had approved the panel under Memo No.442/G dated 18-4-2006. However, two conditions were imposed in the Memo No.442/G dated 18-4-2006 that the appointment letter to the 1st empanelled candidate cannot be issued by the school authority till completion of the Assembly Election and the fate of the approved panel will abide by the result of the Writ Petition being No.1122(W) of 2006. Those two conditions were given in terms of Memo No.694-GA dated 7-4-2006 of the Director of School Education, West Bengal and Memo No.353/H(Law) dated 13-4-2006 of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), 24-Parganas (North). All the documents and papers as were produced including the Writ Petition, the representation of the petitioner dated 20-4-2006/21-4-2006 and the contents of the Court's Judgement have been perused and recorded. Submissions of all were also noted. The rule 3(D) of the Notification No.1628-GA dated 10-7-2002 prescribes that - "A panel shall be prepared with average of marks awarded by each of the members of the Selection Committee in his/her individual score-sheet with signature. If any of the members wants to keep his/her option reserved, he /she shall submit a blank sheet containing names etc. of the candidates and duly signed by him/her and average shall be calculated on the marks awarded by other members. The panel shall be prepared in presence of at least 3(three) Members out of 5(five) Members of the Selection Committee and the panel should be signed by all these Members." So, considering the rule 3(A) of the said Notification in addition it cannot be said that the formation and function of Selection Committee is beyond the prescribed rule. Moreover, it appears from records that the awarding of marks has even been satisfied the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Bongaon and for the reason, the panel has been approved by him. Therefore, nothing is found wrong in approving the panel. It also appears from the approved panel being Memo No.442-G dated 18-4-2006 that the three empanelled candidates are as follows : 1. Bibekananda Biswas 1st 2. Chandan Das 2nd 3. Therefore, nothing is found wrong in approving the panel. It also appears from the approved panel being Memo No.442-G dated 18-4-2006 that the three empanelled candidates are as follows : 1. Bibekananda Biswas 1st 2. Chandan Das 2nd 3. Goutam Ray 3rd Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the above approved panel vide Memo No.442-G dated 18-4-2006 is a right one together with its both the imposed conditions and there is no cogent reason to set aside it. Since the Memo No.442/G dated 18-4-2006 is a right one and the panel is to be valid for one year from the date of approval, the school authority should have to act accordingly. Here the last vote casting day of Assembly Election in West Bengal was 08.6.2006. School Authority had submitted written statement that they had issued appointment letter to the Respondent No.6 herein i.e. the 1st empanelled candidate on 28-4-2006 after the completion of election in the Bangaon Assembly Constituency and the candidate had joined on 29-4-2006. It is not expected. Because, the last cut off date of casting vote was on 08-5-2006 and the School authority cannot issue appointment letter prior to 08-5-2006. But it is admitted fact that the school had did it and the first empanelled candidate has been serving his duties in the post as the Assistant headmaster of the school from 29-4-2006. Since the counting date of votes in the General Assembly Election of West Bengal was on 11-05-2006 and the first empanelled candidate ought to have joined in his post after the completion of the Election date in terms of order No.694-GA dated 7-4-2006. Considering all pros and cons of the case and real happening in the school, the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Bangaon is directed to approve the service of the first empanelled candidate with effect from 12-5-2006 who has been serving the post after joining on 29-4-2006. There will be no need to issue appointment letter further to the incumbent in that respect by the School Authority. The said authority will have to submit the papers of approval of appointment in this regard only to the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Bongaon, if those papers have yet not been submitted for the purpose. There will be no need to issue appointment letter further to the incumbent in that respect by the School Authority. The said authority will have to submit the papers of approval of appointment in this regard only to the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Bongaon, if those papers have yet not been submitted for the purpose. However, it should be pertinent to mention here that this will abide by the result of the Writ Petition being No.1122(W) of 2006, if not decided already or on the line if it has been directed otherwise in the meantime. The Status of the incumbent concerned i.e. Respondent No.6 herein should have to be considered as the Assistant Teacher of the School for the period from 29-4-2006 to 11-5-2006. Petitioner's representation is considered. But no relief can be given. The matter is thus disposed of. All concerned be informed accordingly." 22. It appears that the concerned Director of School Education discussed the matter in threadbare and decided with reasons. 23. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order. However, the point raised by the petitioner against formation of Selection Committee is taken up for consideration by this Court. There is no doubt under Rule 3(a) five-member Selection Committee is required to be formed. In the instant case since teacher-in-charge himself opted to contest the selection process his place remained vacant which could not be filled up. So far the other four members of the Selection Committee are concerned one teachers' representative was to be included and in fact one Anuj Baran Sarkar included as teachers' representative. It was also finalised on 14th December, 2005. All three teachers' representatives were well aware about the proceeding of the meeting. Suddenly Anuj Baran Sarkar wanted to contest the selection process and the Managing Committee allowed him to contest and that is why Managing Committee took decision to hold interview by three-member Selection Committee which is known to all. In these circumstances, three-member Selection Committee held the interview. However, rule 3(d) clearly stipulates that panel shall be prepared in presence of at least three members out of five members of the Selection Committee which was done in the instant case. 24. Thus, three members of the Selection Committee took the interview and they have prepared the panel. In these circumstances, three-member Selection Committee held the interview. However, rule 3(d) clearly stipulates that panel shall be prepared in presence of at least three members out of five members of the Selection Committee which was done in the instant case. 24. Thus, three members of the Selection Committee took the interview and they have prepared the panel. Therefore, there is no illegality whatsoever in preparation of the panel by three-member Selection Committee in the special facts and circumstances of this case. In this regard, it is relevant to point out the writ petitioner who himself applied for contesting the selection process was absent for 10 days for his illness and also did not appear. He being a teacher of the concerned school is well aware of the proceeding of the meeting and never raised any question about formation of the selection committee nor questioned any resolution taken in this regard against such formation. Only after the selection committee's preparation of panel the writ petitioner came up before this Court and moved the writ petition wherein this Hon'ble Court passed an order on 3rd May, 2006 directing the Director of School Education to decide the representation of the writ petitioner dated 21st April, 2006 although interview held on 21st January, 2006 and panel was prepared much before the date of representation. In fact petitioner was sitting on fence and waited long and lastly took a chance if the selection could be cancelled. Accordingly, petitioner lost and waived his right if at all there be any, to question the entire process. 25. In my view, there is no illegality in formation of the selection committee nor there is any illegality in preparation of the panel and its approval nor the appointment of the private respondent is vitiated. So far the judgement cited by Mr. Chatterjee this relates to selection of reader in linguistic in the department of Hindi. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court found that no linguistic expert was included in the Selection Committee and accordingly formation of Selection Committee was not in terms of the advertisement and as such, recommendation of the Selection Committee was quashed. Therefore, the ratio of that judgement do not have any application in the facts and circumstances of this case. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court found that no linguistic expert was included in the Selection Committee and accordingly formation of Selection Committee was not in terms of the advertisement and as such, recommendation of the Selection Committee was quashed. Therefore, the ratio of that judgement do not have any application in the facts and circumstances of this case. Moreover, the relevant rules specially Rules 3(a) and 3(d) which are applicable in the instant case were not subject matter of consideration in that case and therefore, the ratio of their judgement do not also support the contention of the petitioner. 26. I do not find any illegality in assessing marks of the candidates appeared in the interview. None of the contesting applicants has questioned the assessment. I also do not find any merit and substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as regards assessment of marks. 27. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 28. This writ petition is dismissed. 29. There would be no order as to costs. 30. Since all payments were released pursuant to interim order passed in writ petition being W.P. No.20170(W) of 2008 nothing remains to be decided in W.P. No.20170(W) of 2008. Accordingly, the writ petition being W.P. No. 20170(W) of 2008 is disposed of recording payment.