JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing an order dated September 17, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Paschim Medinipur thereby cancelling the petitioner’s prayer for approval of the panel prepared for the post of Laboratory Attendant at Goura Sonamui Kunja Behari Adarsha Sikshayatan. 2. Case of the petitioner briefly stated is as follows. Pursuant to an order of this court dated July 28, 2008 passed in WP No.14623(W) of 2008 the school authority published an advertisement in the daily newspaper “Sambad Pratidin” for the post of Laboratory Attendant dated August 6, 2008 as per resolution dated July 29, 2008. In response to the advertisement the petitioner applied for the post. 3. The writ petition was disposed of by this court on July 28, 2008 directing as follows:– “………….As such, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction upon the respondent authority not to hold the recruitment test from amongst the candidates only sponsored by the employment exchange. They are at liberty to make such recruitment after giving wide publication regarding the vacancy in question through different media. If such publication is made and if the petitioner applies for the post, having requisite qualification, then he will also be allowed to appear for the test.” 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this court the school authority published advertisement in a daily Bengali newspaper namely Sambad Pratidin on August 6, 2008. The school authority also published the notice regarding the vacancy on August 6, 2008 in the Block Development Office, the Gram Panchayat Office and also in the notice board of the school which appears from pages 17-19 to the supplementary affidavit. In response to the wide publication thirty-six candidates applied for the post. Therefore, fifteen candidates from the wide publication, twenty from the sponsored candidates of the employment exchange and one from the court order total thirty-six candidates applied for the said post. 5. On August 29, 2008 selection was held by the selection committee prepared as per clause 6(1)(b) of the 2005 rules. The selection committee was formed as per clause 6(1)(b) of the rules comprising of the Headmaster, Secretary of the school authority, Headmaster of a school in the same sub-division and the Panchayat nominee. 5. On August 29, 2008 selection was held by the selection committee prepared as per clause 6(1)(b) of the 2005 rules. The selection committee was formed as per clause 6(1)(b) of the rules comprising of the Headmaster, Secretary of the school authority, Headmaster of a school in the same sub-division and the Panchayat nominee. The school authority selected three names in the Headmaster of the school situated in same sub-division. 6. Out of three one Sri Brindaban Ghatak, headmaster of Hatsarberia Dr. B.C. Roy S. Sikshyaniketan, since he has given consent, was selected for the headmaster of the same sub-division. One Sudarshan Poria whose name was nominated by the Panchayat Samiti for the said selection was also present in the selection process. Thereafter, the interview was held on August 29, 2008. The petitioner stood first in the said selection process. One Arpan Majhi, an unsuccessful candidate, moved two writ petitions before this court challenging the process of selection. Unfortunately both the writ petitions were rejected by this court. 7. Thereafter, a panel was prepared by the selection committee that was sent for approval to the Additional District Inspector of Schools, Ghatal sub-division on November 7, 2008. Since the concerned District Inspector of Schools was sitting tight over the said panel, the petitioner approached before this court thereby filing a writ petition being WP No.7609(W) of 2009. That writ petition was disposed of by this court on April 24, 2009, thereby directing the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order. Pursuant to the said order the concerned District Inspector of Schools heard the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated September 30, 2009 thereby refusing to approve the said panel, inter alia, on the following grounds: (1) that panel was not prepared in accordance with law; (2) no wide publication was made by the school authority (3) there was agitation from the local people against that panel; (4) delay in sending panel. 8. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the reasons assigned by the District Inspector of schools at the time of refusal to approve the panel do not have any legal force. He further submits that there is no illegality made by the school authority at the time of preparation of the panel. 8. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the reasons assigned by the District Inspector of schools at the time of refusal to approve the panel do not have any legal force. He further submits that there is no illegality made by the school authority at the time of preparation of the panel. He also emphasizes on the point reflected in the impugned order that the President of the school made objection. Mr Mukherjee also submits that the President, being a part of the said school and not a member of the selection committee, has no legal right to make any objection against the panel prepared by the selection committee formed following the procedure prescribed under the said 2005 rules. He further contends that out of nine members of the said managing committee seven members have accepted the said panel. In support of this, he has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Dr. Shiv Jatan Thakur & Ors. reported in AIR 1994 SC 2466 , paragraph 28 and Head Notes A and B. 9. Paragraph 28 of the said judgment is quoted below:– “Shri R.K. Garg, Senior Advocate, who appeared for Dr. Thakur, the petitioner in the writ petition, since did not make any submission in support of the reliefs sought in paragraphs (B) and (C) of the prayer in the writ petition, we do not feel the need to consider them. Shri Garg, we are inclined to think, did not make any submission in support of the reliefs sought n paragraphs (B) and (C) obviously realizing that the allegations on which those reliefs were founded, related to functions of the BPSC, which could not have been disowned by the BPSC’s sitting member. Whatever that be, no member of a Public Service Commission, in our considered view, could be allowed to question the validity or correctness of the functions performed or duties discharged by the Public Service Commission as a body, while he was its member. It ought to be so for the simple reason that such member must be regarded to be a party to the function required to be performed or the duty required to be discharged by the Public Service Commission as a body, while he was its member. It ought to be so for the simple reason that such member must be regarded to be a party to the function required to be performed or the duty required to be discharged by the Public Service Commission as a body, while he was its member. It ought to be so for the simple reason that such member must be regarded to be a party to the function required to be performed or the duty required to be discharged by the Public Service Commission as a body or institution, even though he might have been a dissenting member or a member in a minority or a member who had abstained from taking part in such function performed or duty discharged. Discretionary remedy vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot therefore, be allowed to be invoked by a member of the Public Service Commission to question the correctness or validity of functions performed or duties discharged by the Public Service Commission as a body or institution, according to well established procedures.” 10. According to Mr Mukherjee, no cogent reason has been assigned in the impugned order of refusal. He has relied on rules 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005. He also submits that it is the District Inspector of Schools who is under an obligation to approve the panel which was sent by the school authority for approval. Mr Mukherjee on the point of delay in sending the panel argues that the time prescribed under the rules is not a mandatory one, it is a directive one. Furthermore, it is the duty of the school authority to send the panel within the prescribed time to the concerned District Inspector of Schools. But due to frivolous objection raised by the President of the school authority ultimately the panel was sent to the authority on November 7, 2008. In support of his contention Mr Mukherjee relies on a decision of this court in the case of Nomita Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1999(2) CLJ 21 . The court in the aforesaid decision held that where a statutory functionary is asked to perform a statutory duty within the time prescribed therefor, the same would be directory in nature and not mandatory. 11. Mr. reported in 1999(2) CLJ 21 . The court in the aforesaid decision held that where a statutory functionary is asked to perform a statutory duty within the time prescribed therefor, the same would be directory in nature and not mandatory. 11. Mr. Mukherjee on the self-point point also relies on a decision in the case of Shyamal Sen v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2013 (3) CLJ 386. 12. Before parting with the argument Mr Mukherjee submits that the court should direct the concerned District Inspector of Schools to forthwith approve the panel so that the petitioner who is heading the panel should be given appointment and at the same time the school would also run smoothly. 13. Mr. Saumabrata Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the school authority, submits that there is no illegality or infirmity committed by the school authority at the time of preparation of the panel. He also adopted the argument advanced by Mr Sakti Nath Mukherjee. Needless to mention, in the midst of the argument the court has directed the school authority to furnish all particulars regarding the procedure adopted in respect of the selection of Laboratory Attendant. Therefore, pursuant to direction the school authority has filed the supplementary affidavit annexing relevant documents. 14. Learned advocate for the school authority emphasizes the argument by submitting that there was no departure from the existing recruitment rules. He further submits that no specific reason has been assigned in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order should be quashed and set aside by this court so that after giving appointment to the petitioner the school can function smoothly as the school has been suffering for want of Laboratory attendant. 15. Per contra, Mr Deb Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State, submits that the impugned selection was not made in accordance with procedure laid down in the recruitment process. He submits that the selection committee was not formed according to the procedure as prescribed under the said 2005 rules. He further contends that vide order dated July 16, 2008 this court directed the school authority to make recruitment after giving wide publication relating to the vacancy through different media. Mr Deb Roy further emphasizes his argument by submitting that no wide publication has been made as per the directions passed by this court dated July 28, 2008. He further contends that vide order dated July 16, 2008 this court directed the school authority to make recruitment after giving wide publication relating to the vacancy through different media. Mr Deb Roy further emphasizes his argument by submitting that no wide publication has been made as per the directions passed by this court dated July 28, 2008. The publication was given only in the “Sambad Pratidin” and no other daily newspaper. In this context Mr Deb Roy relies upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216 . Paragraph 6 of the said decision the Supreme Court held that since so many deserving candidates are unable to get their names registered in the employment exchange, therefore, it is wiser to give wide publication in different media like paper publication display, on the office notice board or announcement in radio, Television etc. Therefore, Mr Deb Roy submits relying on the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Ram Ragubir Prasad Agarwal & Ors., reported in AIR 1979 SC 888 that ambiguity, discrepancy and illegality was committed by the managing committee at the time of selection. According to Deb Roy, there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order on refusal to approve the panel which deserves interference by this court. Mr Deb Roy also submits that this writ petition should be dismissed with costs. 16. Considering the submissions advanced by learned advocates appearing for the parties and after perusing the records, including the decisions cited by the learned advocates, I find that before holding selection for the said post the school authority obtained prior permission as per the rules from the concerned District Inspector of Schools. Pursuant to that permission the school authority also requisitioned the concerned employment exchange to sponsor name for the said post. Accordingly, the concerned employment exchange sponsored twenty names for the said post. I also cannot ignore the fact that one candidate also appeared in the said selection process pursuant to court order as well as on the basis of wide publication fifteen candidates, total thirty-six candidates applied. Out of thirty-six candidates, twenty-three candidates appeared in the interview held on August 29, 2008. I also cannot ignore the fact that one candidate also appeared in the said selection process pursuant to court order as well as on the basis of wide publication fifteen candidates, total thirty-six candidates applied. Out of thirty-six candidates, twenty-three candidates appeared in the interview held on August 29, 2008. Thereafter the panel was prepared on August 29, 2008 and approved by the managing committee on October 1, 2008 and in the panel the petitioner stood first. Though the panel was sent by the school authority on November 7, 2008 after lapse of the statutory period. But considering the decisions relied on by Mr Sakti Nath Mukherjee I am of the view that such prescribed time limit is not a mandatory one but a directory one. 17. The court cannot ignore the fact that no cogent reason has been assigned by the concerned District Inspector of Schools at the time of refusing to grant approval to the said panel. The reasons, which have been assigned in the impugned order, in my considered view, are not at all cogent reasons, which could substantiate the act of rejection. The decisions cited by Mr Deb Roy may be good law, but in my opinion, in the present case is not applicable. As the school authority has complied with all the mode of wide publications apart from advertisement in “Sambad Pratidin”, it was also displayed in the BDO office, in the notice board of the school and also notice board of the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. 18. Therefore, in my considered view, the procedure laid down in the Bihar Public Service Commission case [ AIR 1994 SC 2466 ] (supra) have been followed by the school authority. Therefore, on the basis of the discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order dated September 17, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools thereby refusing to approve the said panel cannot be sustained in law as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the order dated September 17, 2009 is hereby set aside and quashed. 19. Accordingly, the order dated September 17, 2009 is hereby set aside and quashed. 19. Resultantly, instead of sending the matter to the District Inspector of Schools again for further consideration, I direct the concerned District Inspector of Schools to approve the said panel sent by the school authority on November 7, 2008, without any further delay but positively within six weeks from the date of communication of this order and thereafter send the approved panel to the concerned school authority within a week. The school authority after receiving the said approved panel shall immediately take steps to give appointment to the petitioner after complying of all formalities. 20. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.