JUDGMENT : Subrata Talukdar, J. 1. The short point of challenge in this writ petition is to the Memo of the Additional District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) (for short ADI (SE) dated 11th September, 2012 refusing to renew the prior permission earlier granted to the School Authority, being the present writ petitioner through its Managing Committee (for short MC), for filling up the post of a non-teaching staff. 2. Sri Ekramul Bari, Ld. Counsel for the School submits that upon upgradation of the School as a High School w.e.f. from 1st May, 2000, the School became entitled to one clerk and two Group-D staff. The DI (SE), Paschim Medinipur granted prior permission for filling up the posts vide his Memo dated 20th July, 2001 and, pursuant to such prior permission, the concerned employment exchange had also sponsored names for the Group-D staff in the year 2002. 3. Sri Bari further submits that thereafter no steps could be taken in view of then existing circumstances to fill up the said posts by the MC of the School. Therefore, the MC of the School approached the DI (SE) through a letter of its Secretary dated 22nd February, 2010 addressed to the ADI (SE) to accord fresh permission for selecting a Group-D staff as approved by the DI through his earlier Memo dated 20th July, 2001. 4. By the order impugned dated 11th September, 2012, the ADI (SE), Kharagpur Sub-Division, District – Paschim Medinipur rejected the prayer of the School for renewal of prior permission since the vacancy of the Group-D staff was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate (for short SC) in terms of the roster points. With the amendment of the School Service Commission Act (for short SSC), 1997 in the year 2009, the ADI (SE) informed the School that the vacancy has been sent to the SSC (Western Region) for taking steps in aid of the selection vide the Memo of the DI (SE) dated 27th December, 2011. 5. Sri Bari submits that the impugned order of rejection is contrary to the law laid down by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Snehansu Jas vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2001 (3) CHN 313 . The ADI (SE)’s decision is also contrary to the law laid down in Ashoke Sawoo vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 (3) CLJ (Cal) 482. The ADI (SE)’s decision is also contrary to the law laid down in Ashoke Sawoo vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 (3) CLJ (Cal) 482. Furthermore, the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 30620 of 2011 in the matter of Secretary of Managing Committee, Kalinagar Girls’ High School vs. Archana Ghosh (Saha) & Ors. clearly lays down that the process of appointment shall be governed by the rules then in force. 6. Therefore, Sri Bari argues that the rules in force when the prior permission was first granted on 20th July, 2001 should apply and the MC of the School be granted the opportunity to fill up the vacant Group-D post in terms of the earlier prior permission. In support of his above noted contention, Sri Bari relies upon an unreported decision of this Court in WP 6421(W) of 2005. 7. Appearing for the State-respondents, Sri Saikat Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate led by Sri Sadananda Ganguly, Ld. Additional Government Pleader argues that the provisions of the rules as existing at the time when fresh prior permission has been initiated in response to the request of the MC of the School shall prevail. Ld. State Advocate argues that with the amendment of the SSC Act in 2009, the selection should take place according to such amended rules. Therefore, the MC has no further role to play in the present scenario. 8. After hearing the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court finds that the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench In Re: Snehansu Jas vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. is unequivocal. Paragraph 21 thereof reads as follows:- “21. In view of the law laid down by the apex Court and Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion that the selection process will commence only when the candidates are invited to appear on the basis of names sent by the Employment Exchange on requisition by the Managing Committee for recruitment of the teachers and if that stage has not reached then it will not amount to commencement of the selection process. The selection process is deemed to have commenced if the posts have been advertised and candidates have been called for interview and meanwhile if the Rules are amended then that selection process should be allowed to continue without being affected by the amendment of the Rules unless the Acts or Rules have been amended with a retrospective effect. Thus, in this view of the matter, the view taken by the learned single Judge in the case of Kanaidighi Deshapran Vidyapith v. State of West Bengal (supra) and Salauddin Miah v. State of West Bengal (supra) are no more good law.” 9. This Court notices, while applying the ratio of In Re: Snehansu Jas (supra) to the facts of this case, that in terms of the earlier prior permission dated 20th July, 2001, no effective steps were initiated by the MC of the School to fill up the vacant Group-D post. As per the record of the writ petition only the local employment exchange sponsored names of candidates. 10. This Court further notices that thereafter there was a long hiatus before the MC of the School approached the ADI (SE) to fill up the post in the year 2010. This request came from the MC five years after the office of the ADI (SE), Kharagpur Sub-Division started functioning from 2005. 11. This Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that in the meantime, w.e.f. from 2009 the amended SSC rules of recruitment for non-teaching staff have come into effect. The request of the MC in 2010 was made after the amendment of the SSC rules and also after, in terms of the new vacancy position the post stood reserved for SC candidate according to the roster. 12. This Court further notices that the judgment In Re: Ashoke Sawoo vs. State of West Bengal has put emphasis on the initiation and completion of the selection process under the rules which were in force when the vacancy in the question arose. Therefore, applying the ratio of In Re: Snehansu Jas (supra) with the ratio of In Re: Ashoke Sawoo to the facts of the present case this Court must come to the conclusion that no selection process was admittedly initiated on the basis of the first prior permission granted by the DI (SE) on 20th July, 2001. Therefore, applying the ratio of In Re: Snehansu Jas (supra) with the ratio of In Re: Ashoke Sawoo to the facts of the present case this Court must come to the conclusion that no selection process was admittedly initiated on the basis of the first prior permission granted by the DI (SE) on 20th July, 2001. As noticed earlier in this discussion only the employment exchange purported to have sponsored some names. However, no further steps were taken to carry out the selection process thereby persuading the School to write to ADI (SE) for granting fresh permission. 13. Therefore, this Court is unable to persuade itself to hold that the selection process, in any way of the matter, commenced with the according of the prior permission on 20th July, 2001. No such selection process having effectively commenced with the prior permission dated 20th July, 2001, this Court is unable to agree with the submissions of Sri Bari that after the gap of nearly a decade, when the MC took no steps to fill up the post in issue, the MC can now claim for revival of the earlier prior permission. 14. In the opinion of this Court the ratio of In Re: Snehansu Jas (supra) applies in the negative to the contentions advanced by the petitioner. 15. WP 24911(W) of 2012 stands accordingly dismissed. 16. There will be, however, no order as to costs.