JUDGMENT : I.P. MUKERJI, J. Both the Managing Committee of a Madrasah and the first empanelled candidate have filed identical writs. They are being disposed of by this judgment and order. The reference to the petitioner will mean one of the petitioners, according to the context. 2. One Group-D post in Basuria Senior Madrasah, P.O.- Dakshin Dinajpur became vacant after 30th June, 2001 when one class-IV staff retired. 3. On 22nd September, 2008 the Additional District Inspector Schools (SE) Gangarampur, Dakshin Dinajpur accorded permission to the school authorities to fill up this vacant post. The Employment Exchange was notified by the School Authorities and on 30th September, 2008 they sponsored the names of eligible candidates. On 30th December, 2008 the vacancy was also advertised by the school authorities, inviting applications. 4. The eligibility criteria were that the candidate must have passed class-VIII and must have had the ability in read and write in English and Bengali. 5. On 7th July, 2010 the interview was held by a two member Selection Committee. A panel was prepared and submitted by the Managing Committee of the school on the same date. The writ petitioner was the first empanelled candidate. The Selection Committee submitted the panel to the Managing Committee by a resolution taken on that date itself. The Managing Committee decided to send the panel to the District Inspector Schools (SE) for his approval. The District Inspector Schools (SE) did not approve this panel. 6. It appears that one Md. Asheque Ilahi preferred a writ before Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta (WP 21391 (W) of 2010) complaining against non-approval of the said panel by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) His lordship, on 10th November, 2010 directed consideration of the matter by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Gangarampur, Dakshin Dinajpur. 7. By his decision dated 17th January, 2011 the District Inspector rejected the case of the writ petitioner. He advanced the following reasons 8. Under the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005, West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-Teaching Staff ) Rules, 2005 dated 26th December, 2005 the Selection Committee was to comprise of four persons (Headmaster/Teacher-in-Charge, Expert, Secretary and Panchayat nominee). But only two persons were present in the interview board namely the Expert and the Secretary of the Madrasah. Under the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005, West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-Teaching Staff ) Rules, 2005 dated 26th December, 2005 the Selection Committee was to comprise of four persons (Headmaster/Teacher-in-Charge, Expert, Secretary and Panchayat nominee). But only two persons were present in the interview board namely the Expert and the Secretary of the Madrasah. Furthermore, the District Inspector of Schools (SE) opined that under the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005, Rule 8 (sub-rule 7(b) if the interview was postponed the Selection Committee should have forthwith communicated the fact to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) and obtained his approval for holding the interview on a later date. He further held that neither the Managing Committee of the School nor the Selection Committee felt it necessary to receive the approval of the board while postponing the date of interview. Furthermore, he said that the pendency of another writ application (WP 16583 (W) of 2010) did not allow the District Inspector of Schools (SE) to approve the panel. 9. Most importantly, he cited the Madrasah Service Commission Act which was amended on 4th June, 2009. Selection of Group-D staff was not with the school any more. Therefore, the said District Inspector of Schools was unable to approve the panel which should have been sent to the Madrasah Service Commission. 10. The first point of the respondents is substantial. They say that the Selection Committee ought to have comprised of four gentleman, the Headmaster or Teacher-in-charge, a Subject Expert, the Secretary of the Institution and a Panchayat nominee, according to the amended West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005 dated 26th December, 2005 read with its amendment made on 18th July, 2007. In this case only the expert and Secretary of the Madrasah were present at the time of interview. However, The District Inspector of Schools, Murshidabad & Ors. vs. Samsul Huda and Ors. reported in 1987 (2) CLJ 144 ruled that marks given by 50% of the members of a Selection Committee were valid and to be counted while making the selection. Hence, the absence of 50% of the members of the Selection Committee did not vitiate the process. This view was followed by Mr. vs. Samsul Huda and Ors. reported in 1987 (2) CLJ 144 ruled that marks given by 50% of the members of a Selection Committee were valid and to be counted while making the selection. Hence, the absence of 50% of the members of the Selection Committee did not vitiate the process. This view was followed by Mr. Justice Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya in W.P. No. 19279 (W) of 2009 (CAN 4591 of 2010) with W.P. 5430 (W) of 2010 Paban Kumar Dutta vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. decided on 21st June, 2011. The same ratio was followed by Mr. Justice Debasish Kar Gupta in W.P. No. 37561 (W) of 2013 Usha Munshib (Panja) vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. decided on 30th January, 2014. 11. I do not know why these well-known judgments of this court in the field were not considered by the District Inspector while deciding the matter. 12. Hence, this objection has no merit. 13. From the above authorities it is quite plain that an interview process conducted by 50% of the members of the interview Board is not vitiated and that the panel prepared by this Board can be acted upon. 13A. The petitioner states that on 14th June, 2010 and 24th June, 2010, by letters permission was sought from the Additional District Inspector of Schools Dakshin Dinajpur to hold the interview on 7th July, 2010. The Additional District Inspector did not respond to this request. In those circumstances, on 7th July, 2010 the interview was held by the two member selection committee. The objection of the respondents is that the interview could not take place without the approval of the Additional District Inspector of Schools. 14. Mr. Bari for the petitioner argues that if the Additional District Inspector had refused postponement of the date of the interview, he ought to have indicated his refusal. Keeping silent over the matter only denoted his tacit approval to the interview being held. 15. In my opinion, Mr. Bari is absolutely right. 16. The Additional District Inspector could have expressly refused permission to the changed date of interview. He had no power to keep the selection process in suspension. Having not replied to the two letters of the petitioners dated 14th June, 2010 and 24th June, 2010, he is taken to have expressed his no objection, impliedly, to the holding of the interview. The Additional District Inspector could have expressly refused permission to the changed date of interview. He had no power to keep the selection process in suspension. Having not replied to the two letters of the petitioners dated 14th June, 2010 and 24th June, 2010, he is taken to have expressed his no objection, impliedly, to the holding of the interview. According to the petitioner, the statement made in the impugned order that because of pendency of a writ application the case of the petitioner could not be considered is equally without any merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner tells me that the writ application (WP.16583 (W) of 2010) was dismissed by this Court on 1st March 2011 directing completion of the selection process on the basis of the interview dated 7th July, 2010. No writ was pending on the date the impugned order was passed. Here also, the petitioner is correct. 17. Further, according to the petitioner the Madrasah School Service Commission Act for recruitment of non-teaching staff of Madrasah came into effect on 4th June, 2009. Mr. Bari submits that this Act had no retrospective effect. 18. According to P. Ganeshwar Rao vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1988 SC 2068 when a vacancy has been notified for recruitment any subsequent change of law cannot change the rules of selection. The rules prevailing on the day of the notification would apply. In Gopal Krishna Rath vs. M.A.A. Baig reported in AIR 1999 SC 2093 before the last date for inviting applications, the qualification criterion was changed. The Court held that a subsequent change in the qualification criterion could not be applicable to the subject selection process. These two judgments and many others of the Supreme Court and of this Court were discussed in a Division Bench judgment of our Court in the case of Snehansu Jas vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2001 (2) CLJ 558 along with connected matters when their lordships opined that once the selection process had commenced the rules existing on that day would govern the selection process. In this case on 22nd September, 2008 before enactment of the Madrasah School Service Commission Act, the Additional District Inspector, Dakshin Dinajpur had accorded permission for filling up the subject Group-D post. The selection process had thus started. In this case on 22nd September, 2008 before enactment of the Madrasah School Service Commission Act, the Additional District Inspector, Dakshin Dinajpur had accorded permission for filling up the subject Group-D post. The selection process had thus started. Therefore, only the law prior to enactment of the Madrasah School Service Commission Act would impact the selection process. 19. Therefore, in my opinion this ground also taken by the respondents has not merit. 20. In those circumstances, these writ applications are allowed by passing an orders terms of prayer (a) and (b) of the writ petition W.P. 2325 (W) of 2011. Furthermore, the respondents are directed to make the appointment of the petitioner after approving in toto the said panel forwarded by the Managing Committee of the Madrasah on 7th July, 2010, within three months of communication of this order. 21. Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.