Judgment Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. Although the matter is appearing under the heading ‘for orders’, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal, by consent of Mr. Himadri Barua, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. In spite of service, the private respondents remain ex parte. In this appeal an order dated January 9, 2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 7860 (W) of 2010 is impugned. There was a selection for recruitment in the post of Group ‘C’ in the school concerned. The selection committee prepared a panel. The school authorities, thereafter, forwarded the panel for approval by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Purba Medinipur. The District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Purba Medinipur, by his order dated March 25, 2010, refused to approve the panel, inter alia, on the ground that in evaluating the type writing test there was no uniformity of awarding marks to the interviewed candidates by the members of the selection committee. The District Inspector of Schools, further, observed that this was quite dissatisfactory. The said decision of District Inspector of Schools was challenged in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as W. P. No. 7860 (W) of 2010. In the order impugned, the Hon’ble Single Judge observed that it was not possible for this Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with such an order of District Inspector of Schools, when the authority concerned expressed his dissatisfaction regarding awarding of marks by the members of the committee. Just as the recommendation of the selection committee is not binding on the appointing authority, the same, also, does not give rise to any legitimate expectation in the selected candidate nor does it create any vested right. It is elementary that the appointing authority is under no obligation to accept the recommendation of the selection committee. The appointing authority is justified in taking into consideration the adverse circumstances in relation to such selection when such adverse circumstances come to the knowledge of the appointing authority. We do not think that the Hon’ble Single Judge has exercised his discretion erroneously while considering the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requiring interference of the Court of appeal. We do not think that the Hon’ble Single Judge has exercised his discretion erroneously while considering the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requiring interference of the Court of appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.: I agree.