JUDGMENT : Dipankar Datta, J. 1. These four appeals, having a common source, were heard together and we propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order. 2. A brief recital of the relevant facts, as a prologue to our decision, would be in order. 3. The Secretary, West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education by his memo dated July 18, 2008 conveyed approval of reconstitution of the Managing Committee of B.S.M.M. High Madrasah (hereafter the said madrasah) for 3 years w.e.f. February 29, 2008 with, inter alia, Sukchand Ali (hereafter Sukchand), Muktadul Islam (hereafter Muktadul) and Eksad Ali (hereafter Eksad) as the President, the Vice-President and the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah respectively. 4. Prior thereto, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad (hereafter the DIoS) by his memo dated March 17, 2008 had granted prior permission to the Secretary, Managing Committee of the said madrasah to fill up two vacant onteaching posts therein [one Group C staff (clerk) and one Group-D staff (peon)] (hereafter the said posts, wherever referred to jointly) in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Director of School Education, West Bengal (hereafter the Director) in, inter alia, G.A. No. 1594 – S.E.(s) dated December 26, 2005. Advertisements were published on December 6, 2008 by the Managing Committee of the said madrasah inviting applications from interested candidates for appointment on the said posts. Names of eligible candidates were also requisitioned from the relevant employment exchange for such purpose. Those candidates, who were sponsored and who had responded pursuant to the advertisements, were called upon to attend interview on December 2, 2008. Two sets of panel, one for the post of clerk and the other for the post of peon, were prepared and forwarded to the DIoS for approval by Eksad on January 9, 2009. In the panels prepared for appointment on the posts of clerk and peon, Raihanul Haque (hereafter Raihanul) and Muklesur Rahaman (hereafter Muklesur) respectively figured at the first positions. 5. The DIoS, by an order dated August 11, 2009, cancelled the panels on the ground that “the signature of the secretary as was shown for holding the meeting for approval of the panels of clerk and group-D” seems fictitious; accordingly, a request was made for reinterview of the candidates following the latest recruitment rules strictly. 6. 5. The DIoS, by an order dated August 11, 2009, cancelled the panels on the ground that “the signature of the secretary as was shown for holding the meeting for approval of the panels of clerk and group-D” seems fictitious; accordingly, a request was made for reinterview of the candidates following the latest recruitment rules strictly. 6. The said order dated August 11, 2009 was challenged by Eksad by presenting a writ petition [WP 14720 (W) of 2009] before this Court. In such writ petition, Eksad claimed himself to be the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said madrasah. The said madrasah was not impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition but Eksad claimed that he had been authorized by such Managing Committee not only to look after the interests of the said madrasah but also to look after litigation and cases on its behalf and craved for leave to produce, refer to and rely on the relevant resolutions, if necessary, at the time of hearing of the writ petition. One of us (Dipankar Datta, J.) had the occasion to consider the writ petition of Eksad. By judgment and order dated October 21, 2009, the order impugned in the writ petition dated August 11, 2009 was set aside with direction upon the DIoS to call upon Eksad to present himself before the DIoS for the purpose of ascertaining whether Eksad had duly signed the panels and the related papers or not. The DIoS was granted liberty to obtain fresh signature of Eksad for the purpose of comparative study and for returning a conclusion as to whether Eksad’s signature in the panels and/or the related papers tally with the one obtained by the DIoS. In case the signature did not tally, the DIoS was granted liberty to pass a fresh reasoned order disapproving the panel and to communicate his decision to Eksad; on the contrary, in case the signature tallied, the DIoS was directed to proceed in accordance with law to approve the panels. The aforesaid order was duly communicated to the DIoS by Eksad for compliance. 7. On December 7, 2009, Sukchand as the President of the Managing Committee of the said madrasah addressed a letter to the DIoS alleging suppression on the part of Eksad in approaching the High Court challenging memo dated August 11, 2009. The aforesaid order was duly communicated to the DIoS by Eksad for compliance. 7. On December 7, 2009, Sukchand as the President of the Managing Committee of the said madrasah addressed a letter to the DIoS alleging suppression on the part of Eksad in approaching the High Court challenging memo dated August 11, 2009. Referring to the illegality committed in preparation of panels for appointment on the said posts, Sukchand prayed for permission to hold re-interview in terms of memo dated August 11, 2009. 8. While the matter relating to compliance of the order dated October 21, 2009 was pending at the end of the DIoS, a writ petition [WP 769 (W) of 2009] was presented by Sukchand and Muktadul. They called in question the inaction of the DIoS in disposing of their complaints (dated 13th and 15th January, 2009) in regard to illegalities in preparation of the panels, which were forwarded by Eksad on January 9, 2009. 9. During the pendency of such writ petition, the DIoS had passed an order dated March 5, 2010 [upon hearing Eksad and the teacher-in-charge of the said madrasah, Nur Mohammad Mondal (hereafter Nur), who happened to be the father of Raihanul] in compliance with the order dated October 21, 2009. Reference was also made in such order by the DIoS to an order dated April 2, 2009 passed in WP 1346 (W) of 2009 (Md. Muluk Chand v. State of West Bengal & ors.). In course of hearing we were informed that Md. Muluk Chand was an aspirant for the post of peon, who had lodged an independent complaint before the DIoS in regard to preparation of panel for appointment on such post and by the order dated April 2, 2009, a learned Judge directed the DIoS to dispose of such complaint in accordance with law. 10. The order passed by the DIoS dated March 5, 2010 reads as follows: “Considered the submission of parties pursued all relevant papers and records, it is observed that the signature of the Secretary approving the panel in the meeting of Managing Committee held on 15.12.2008 seems fictitious as the same signature appears in the meeting Notice Book of the Managing Committee with one of the Agendum Approval of Panel Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ post for the next following meeting scheduled to be held on 06.01.2009. The matter is inconsistent and not in accordance with law. The matter is inconsistent and not in accordance with law. Moreover 6 elected members of the Managing Committee along with president and vice President have alleged that the panel of Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ post are not passed by the Managing Committee till now. In the light of above observation, I am of the opinion that fresh and unanimous resolution be adopted and duly passed panel of Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ post be submitted afresh. Thus the matter is disposed of. All concerned by informed accordingly.” 11. WP 769 (W) of 2010 was disposed of by another learned Judge of this Court upon being informed by the learned advocate for the State that the DIoS had not approved the disputed panels. It is, however, not too clear as to whether His Lordship was informed of the above order of the DIoS passed in compliance with the order dated October 21, 2009 while disposing of WP 14720 (W) of 2009. Be that as it may. 12. Aggrieved by the order dated March 5, 2010 of the DIoS, Eksad presented a second writ petition [WP 7439 (W) of 2010]. The fate of such writ petition shall be adverted to at a later part of this judgment. 13. It would be useful at this stage to take note of some of the resolutions adopted by the Managing Committee of the said madrasah and then to revert to the sequence of events leading to presentation of these appeals. 14. The resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah on December 15, 2008 reveals that the panels prepared in pursuance of the interview conducted on December 2, 2008 were approved. In such meeting, Nur was present in the meeting as the teacher-in-charge of the said madrasah. Despite Raihanul having figured at the first position of the panel prepared for appointment on the post of clerk, Nur participated in the meeting and was a party to the resolution approving both the panels. 15. The resolution dated February 5, 2009 reveals that in a meeting attended by 7 (seven) members, including Sukchand and Muktadul, it was resolved to cancel the panel prepared for the post of clerk. 16. In a further meeting held on December 4, 2009, eight (8) members of the Managing Committee including Sukchand and Muktadul had resolved to remove Eksad from the office of Secretary of the Managing Committee. 17. 16. In a further meeting held on December 4, 2009, eight (8) members of the Managing Committee including Sukchand and Muktadul had resolved to remove Eksad from the office of Secretary of the Managing Committee. 17. In the meeting of the Managing Committee held on May 7, 2010 attended by 8 (eight) members including Muktadul and Sukchand, a decision was taken to cancel the earlier panels for filling up the said posts as well as the decision taken on December 15, 2008 and to approach the DIoS once again so that the same could be filled up in accordance with the recruitment rules. 18. All the 13 members of the Managing Committee appear to have been present in a meeting held on June 21, 2010 when a ‘no-confidence’ motion was moved against Eksad. Out of the 13 members present, 9 voted in favour of the motion as a result whereof Eksad, by an overwhelming majority, stood removed from the office of Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said madrasah. It was also resolved to entrust the teacher-in-charge of the said madrasah with the responsibilities of Secretary till such time a member of the Managing Committee was duly elected as Secretary. 19. The next meeting of the Managing Committee, dated July 24, 2010, confirmed the earlier resolution dated June 21, 2010 of removal of Eksad. In such meeting, Muktadul was elected as the new Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said madrasah. 20. In the meeting held on November 9, 2010, a decision was taken to conduct re-interview on December 4, 2010 and the Secretary (Muktadul) was authorized to issue call letters to the candidates. The call letters issued by Muktadul in the capacity as Secretary of the Managing Committee referred to the order of the DIoS dated August 11, 2009 as the source of power authorizing the Managing Committee to proceed with re-interview. 21. Raihanul and Muklesur duly received the call letters issued in their favour. On November 22, 2010, they submitted a joint representation before Muktadul addressing him as the so-called Secretary. They referred to the judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 passed on WP 14720 (W) of 2009 and contended that the order of the DIoS dated August 11, 2009 having been set aside, question of re-interview does not arise. On November 22, 2010, they submitted a joint representation before Muktadul addressing him as the so-called Secretary. They referred to the judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 passed on WP 14720 (W) of 2009 and contended that the order of the DIoS dated August 11, 2009 having been set aside, question of re-interview does not arise. Accordingly, it was prayed that the Managing Committee ought to desist itself from proceeding with the re-interview. Together with the representation, copy of the judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 was enclosed. Copies of such representation were also sought to be forwarded to the other members of the Managing Committee as well as the DIoS. Page 109 of the paper book in FMA 208 of 2012 bears evidence of receipt of the representation dated November 22, 2010 by, inter alia, Muktadul, Sukchand, the teacher-incharge of the said madrasah as well as by the DIoS. 22. On the ground that the representation dated November 22, 2010 had not been disposed of, Raihanual and Muklesur stayed away from the proceedings of re-interview conducted on October 4, 2010. Pursuant to such re-interview, the Managing Committee once again prepared 2 (two) panels for recruitment on the said posts. Nurujjaman and Oliul Mondal (hereafter Oliul) figured at the top of the panels for appointment as clerk and peon respectively. The 2 (two) panels were forwarded to the DIoS, who by an order dated January 4, 2011 refused to accord approval on the following ground: “The undersigned has to inform the School Authority that the Memo No.1148/1/2(50)GA dated 25.06.2010 arising out of the G.O. No.740/ES/S dated 13.5.2010 which clearly indicates in its operative part that any panel prepared by the school after 9th July, 2009 cannot be entertained i.e. the date from which the West Bengal School Service Commission Rules 2009 has come into force. In the light of the above all the panels which were placed before this office cannot be approved from this end. The School Authority is hereby requested to follow the G.O. No.740?Es/S dated 13.05.2010 read with the Memo No.1148/1/2(50)GA dated 25.06.2010 for apptt. Of non-teaching staff.” 23. The said order of the DIoS was challenged by Nurujjaman and Oliul by presenting separate writ petitions [WP 4501-02(W) of 2011]. A learned Judge by similar but separate judgment and order dated March 10, 2011 allowed the writ petitions. Of non-teaching staff.” 23. The said order of the DIoS was challenged by Nurujjaman and Oliul by presenting separate writ petitions [WP 4501-02(W) of 2011]. A learned Judge by similar but separate judgment and order dated March 10, 2011 allowed the writ petitions. The judgment and order passed on WP 4502(W) of 2011 reads as follows: “*** The District Inspector of Schools (SE) Murshidabad, on 17th March 2008, accorded approval for filling up the post of Peon (Group-D) in B.S.M.M. High Madrasah, Murshidabd. Pursuant to such approval, the post was advertised and applications were invited from eligible candidates. After receiving the applications, interview was held, panel was prepared and was sent to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Murshidabad, for approval. The District Inspector of Schools (SE) Murshidabad, vide Memo No.1573-g dated 11th August 2009, cancelled the said panel and directed the Secretary of the said Madrasah to re-interview the candidates in terms of the Recruitment Rules. Pursuant to such direction, re-interview was held and a fresh panel, being approved by the Managing Committee, was sent for approval to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Murshidabad. The said panel also met with the same fate. This time the said panel had been cancelled on the ground that New Rules, being West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Recruitment (Selection and Recommendation of persons for Appointment and Transfer to the Posts of Teacher and non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2010 has been promulgated. The writ petitioner has challenged the said order communicated vide Memo No.84-g dated 14th January, 2011. In the case of Secretary of the Managing Committee, Kalinagar Girls’ High School, Nadia vs. Archana Ghosh (Saha) & Ors, reported in 2010 (3) CHN (Cal) 940, Division Bench held that the process of selection of candidates for appointment in non-teaching posts should be conducted under the Rules, which was prevalent at the time when the vacancy arose. In view of the above, the impugned Memo No.84-g dated 14th January 2011 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Murshidabad is directed to take a decision for approval of the panel submitted afresh, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Murshidabad should take such decision within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ application, accordingly, stands disposed of. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Murshidabad is directed to take a decision for approval of the panel submitted afresh, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Murshidabad should take such decision within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ application, accordingly, stands disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.” 24. Acting in compliance with the aforesaid order dated March, 10, 2011, the DIoS approved both the panels. Letters of appointment dated May 18, 2011 having been issued in favour of Nurujjaman and Oliul, they accepted the same and joined their respective posts soon thereafter. On June 20, 2011, the DIoS approved the appointments of both Nurujjaman and Oliul. 25. It was at this stage that Raihanul and Muklesur entered the portals of this Court to challenge the orders passed on the writ petitions of Nurujjaman and Oliul. Raihanul’s appeal was numbered MAT 931 of 2012 while Muklesur’s appeal was numbered MAT 931 of 2012. Since Raihanul and Muklesur were not parties to the writ petitions presented by Nurujjaman and Oliul, they obtained leave of a coordinate Bench to prefer appeals. Upon hearing the applications for stay filed in such appeals, a coordinate Bench by order dated July 19, 2011 stayed the orders under challenge dated March 10, 2011. As a consequence thereof, the DIoS stopped payment of salary in favour of Nurujjaman and Oliul. 26. Soon thereafter, WP 7439 (W) of 2010 presented by Eksad came up for final hearing before another learned Judge of this Court. By judgment and order dated December 19, 2011, the writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order reading as follows: “The panel-in-question was not approved by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad, as the signature of the Secretary appearing in the meeting notice book of the managing committee does not tally with his signature appearing in the panel in question prepared by the members of the selection committee. Here is the case where the Secretary himself appeared before the concerned District Inspector of Schools and admitted before him that he subscribed his signature in the panel in question. Thus, this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of the signature of the Secretary appearing in the said panel. Here is the case where the Secretary himself appeared before the concerned District Inspector of Schools and admitted before him that he subscribed his signature in the panel in question. Thus, this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of the signature of the Secretary appearing in the said panel. Thus, this court is of the view that no further, investigation is necessary to resolve the dispute as to whether the Secretary signed the panel or not. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned order cannot be retained on record. The concerned District Inspector of Schools is, thus, directed to consider as to whether the panel is otherwise legal and valid and if it is found that it is otherwise legal and valid, the concerned District Inspector of Schools will approve the panel and communicate his decision to the school authority. Such exercise should be completed within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.” 27. After the DIoS stopped payment of salary, Nurujjaman and Oliul learnt of the judgment and order dated December 19, 2011 passed in WP 7439 (W) of 2010. They also learnt that the Managing Committee had no knowledge of such writ petition having been presented by Eksad challenging the order of the DIoS dated March 5, 2010. Aggrieved thereby, Nurujjaman and Oliul carried the judgment and order dated December 19, 2011 in appeals by preferring MAT 341 of 2012 and MAT 340 of 2012 respectively, together with applications for leave to appeal. Leave, as prayed for, was granted by another coordinate Bench and the stay applications filed in connection with such appeals were listed for hearing before a Bench consisting of Dipankar Datta and Sahidullah Munshi JJ., when it was ordered that all the appeals would be heard together as early as possible upon preparation of paper books. 28. It is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of the appeals to refer to each and every argument advanced by Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for Nurujjaman and Oliul, Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate representing the State and Mr. Mustafa, learned advocate for Eksad, Raihanul and Muklesur in great detail. We shall touch upon the relevant contentions only, and then record our conclusions in respect thereof. 29. In course of his argument, Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for Nurujjaman and Oliul, Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate representing the State and Mr. Mustafa, learned advocate for Eksad, Raihanul and Muklesur in great detail. We shall touch upon the relevant contentions only, and then record our conclusions in respect thereof. 29. In course of his argument, Mr. Sanyal contended that Eksad has been guilty of practicing fraud on Court by obtaining orders suppressing material facts. According to him since fraud vitiates even the most solemn act, we should declare not only the order dated December 19, 2011 obtained by Eksad on WP 7439 (W) of 2010 as non-est and non-enforceable, similar observation ought to follow even in respect of the judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 passed in WP 14720 (W) of 2009. To buttress his contention, Mr. Sanyal has placed reliance on several decisions of the Supreme Court, viz. (2012) 1 SCC 476 [Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi], (2007) 4 SCC 221 [A.V. Paapayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.], (2004) 11 SCC 364 [Commissioner of Customs, Kandala v. Essar Oil Ltd. & ors.], AIR 2000 SC 1165 [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh] and 2016 (3) CHN (SC) 229 [State of U.P. v. Ravindra Kumar Sharma]. 30. The principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions admit of no doubt and, therefore, dealing with each one of them may not be necessary. However, our conclusion would rest also on other decisions of the Supreme Court which apply on facts and in the circumstances of the appeals under consideration. 31. Conscious of the fact that disposal of WP 14720(W) of 2009 vide judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 was by one of us and Mr. Sanyal has prayed that the same be declared non-est being a product of fraud committed on Court, we proceed with the task of examining such point first. Importantly, the judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 is not directly under challenge in any appeal. What is the effect thereof ? 32. While we agree with Mr. Sanyal that Eksad was guilty of gross misrepresentation of facts while WP 7439 (W) of 2010 was being prosecuted by him before the learned Judge on December 19, 2011, the same conclusion cannot be recorded in respect of the order obtained by him on his first writ petition. What is the effect thereof ? 32. While we agree with Mr. Sanyal that Eksad was guilty of gross misrepresentation of facts while WP 7439 (W) of 2010 was being prosecuted by him before the learned Judge on December 19, 2011, the same conclusion cannot be recorded in respect of the order obtained by him on his first writ petition. Undoubtedly, on that date, Eksad was the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said madrasah whereas much prior to the judgment and order dated December 19, 2011 being pronounced, Eksad had been removed from the office of Secretary. The ground of fraud urged by Mr. Sanyal in his endeavour to have the judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 nullified is restricted only to the point that Eksad had not disclosed any material before the Court that the Managing Committee had authorized him to initiate litigation before this Court challenging the order dated August 11, 2009 passed by the DIoS. As has noted been above, Eksad had pleaded in WP 15720 (W) of 2009 of having authority to represent the Managing Committee in litigation before a Court of law. The writ petition was disposed of on the first day it was listed for admission hearing. It appears that the State, being the principal respondent, was represented by a learned advocate. In the absence of any objection taken to the maintainability of the writ petition by such advocate and the DIoS having proceeded to comply with the judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 without any demur, it can safely be presumed that even the DIoS (who was a respondent in the writ petition and who could be said to have been really affected by reversal of his earlier order dated August 11, 2009) did not perceive fraud having been committed on Court and naturally did not challenge the said order. As is well-known, fraud has to be pleaded and proved. Apart from a bare sentence in the affidavit in reply filed in the stay application arising out of MAT 340-341 of 2012, there is no hint of Eksad having obtained the judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 by practicing fraud on Court. A finding on fraud cannot be returned based on mere suspicion. An order of a judicial forum attains finality if no appeal/review were filed. A finding on fraud cannot be returned based on mere suspicion. An order of a judicial forum attains finality if no appeal/review were filed. Even if an order is made without jurisdiction, it does not bear the label of invalidity on its forehead so that a party bound by it might avoid it; such order to be avoided has to be set aside in an appropriate proceeding. There being no independent appeal against the order dated October 21, 2009, we would be assuming a jurisdiction not otherwise possessed by us if we were to hold the judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 as non-est. 33. In recording our conclusion on the point raised by Mr. Sanyal, we draw inspiration from the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2015) 14 SCC 316 [Embassy Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Gajaraj & Co.], wherein it has been held as follows: “17. No doubt, if a fraud is alleged and proved, it can be sufficient to get rid of most solemn of proceedings including court proceedings. But in case of order of a court of competent jurisdiction, this must be done only by throwing a direct challenge to the proceedings by instituting a suit for that purpose or through any appropriate legal proceeding which may permit such direct challenge. Judgments of courts cannot be ignored by another court in a collateral proceeding and that also on mere suspicion of fraud or collusion, as has been done in this case. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly placed reliance for this purpose on para 76 of a recent judgment of this Court in Union of India v. S.P. Sharma, (2014) 6 SCC 351 . Para 76 of the judgment reads as follows: (SCC p. 389) 76. A decision rendered by a competent court cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings for the reason that if it is permitted to do so there would be ‘confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning’.” (underlining for emphasis by us) 34. In the absence of any direct challenge, we are unable to declare the judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 to be non-est. 35. However, insofar as the order obtained by Eksad on December 19, 2011 is concerned, there can hardly be any doubt or dispute that relevant materials were withheld from the learned Judge. Submission of Mr. In the absence of any direct challenge, we are unable to declare the judgment and order dated October 21, 2009 to be non-est. 35. However, insofar as the order obtained by Eksad on December 19, 2011 is concerned, there can hardly be any doubt or dispute that relevant materials were withheld from the learned Judge. Submission of Mr. Mostafa that Eksad was not removed in accordance with law is one in desperation. Eksad himself was present in the meeting held on June 21, 2010 when he was removed from the office of Secretary. If indeed he was illegally removed, he was free to challenge such action. Not having so challenged, he must be held to have accepted his removal from the office of Secretary as an action taken according to law. A writ court exercises equitable jurisdiction and it is incumbent upon every litigant to approach such court with clean hands. An approach which is not bona fide or intended for ulterior motives or collateral purposes does not deserve exercise of equitable jurisdiction. Eksad having been removed from the office of Secretary committed an unpardonable wrong in not disclosing such fact to His Lordship. The judgment and order dated December 19, 2011 is liable to interference not on the ground of the learned Judge having committed any error in the exercise of jurisdiction but on the ground that the same was procured by him by resorting to fraudulent activity without the necessary and relevant materials being placed by him before His Lordship. 36. In the result, we have no other option but to set aside the judgment and order dated December 19, 2011. We do order accordingly. The appeals filed by Nurujjaman and Oliul thereagainst, accordingly, stands allowed without costs. 37. However, would such setting aside enure to the benefit of Nurujjaman and Oliul? We shall now venture to find an answer to the question. 38. The new Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah i.e. Muktadul, issued call letters to all the candidates to attend re-interview arranged in terms of the order of the DIoS dated August 11, 2009.As rightly submitted by Mr. Mostafa, the order dated August 11, 2009 of the DIoS did not exist in the eye of law when the call letters were issued. Mostafa, the order dated August 11, 2009 of the DIoS did not exist in the eye of law when the call letters were issued. That apart, there was a subsequent order of the DIoS dated March 5, 2010 whereby the Managing Committee of the said madrasah was directed to adopt fresh and unanimous resolution for approving the panels for recruitment on the said posts and to submit it afresh. Till such time the order dated March 5, 2010 was set aside by the judgment and order dated December 19, 2011, which in turn has been set aside above, the Managing Committee of the said madrasah had no permission to proceed with re-interview of the candidates. From the factual narrative, it would appear that neither was Sukchand’s prayer (contained in his representation dated December 7, 2009) granted nor did the DIoS proceed to any grant permission to the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah pursuant to the resolution dated May 7, 2010. In such circumstances, the action of Muktadul to issue call letters in favour of the candidates for attending a re-interview, which was being arranged in terms of the order of the DIoS dated August 11, 2009, was an unauthorized act and any action taken as a follow-up thereof would also stand unauthorized and inoperative. 39. Mr. Mukherjee has invited our attention to clause 8(b) of the recruitment guidelines issued by the Director vide memo dated December 26, 2005. Such clause requires a managing committee to seek permission from the district inspector, if an interview is postponed, to hold it on any other day. If on account of postponement, whatever be the reason, a re-scheduling of the date of interview is considered necessary and the permission of the district inspector is required to hold the interview on a subsequent date in terms of the recruitment guidelines, a fortiori, we are inclined to the view that once an interview has been conducted and the process of selection is concluded by the duly constituted selection committee, but the managing committee does not wish to proceed on the basis of the result of selection for some reason or the other and seeks to conduct a re-interview, permission of the district inspector is imperative. This is so because the district inspector should be satisfied that genuine reason exist for granting permission to hold re-interview, or else any likely abuse/misuse of power much to the detriment and prejudice of a section of the aspiring candidates would go unnoticed and provide a breeding ground of corruption. 40. From the records, however, it does not appear that any such permission was granted to the Managing Committee of the said madrasah to conduct re-interview; instead, by the order dated March 5, 2010, the DIoS opined that “fresh and unanimous resolution be adopted and duly passed panel of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ post be submitted afresh”, meaning thereby that the panels had to be drawn up on the basis of the interview conducted on August 11, 2009. 41. It is also clear as crystal that the learned Judge who had considered the writ petitions of Nurujjaman and Oliul and ultimately granted relief to them, was not at all aware of all these antecedent facts. His Lordship, evidently, concluded having regard to the order of the DIoS dated August 11, 2009 that permission had been granted for re-interview. That the order of the DIoS dated August 11, 2009 had been set aside and a further order dated March 5, 2010 had been passed by the DIoS, were not part of the records of the writ petitions presented by Nurujjaman and Oliul. It is not that they are to be faulted therefor but obviously Muktadul, Sukchand and the teacher-in-charge of the said madrasah are to be blamed. The said madrasah, through the Secretary of the Managing Committee, and the teacher-in-charge were represented by learned advocate before His Lordship. Strangely enough, despite being aware of all the relevant facts, the factual scenario was not placed before His Lordship in the proper perspective. His Lordship was presented with half-baked facts and unknowingly proceeded to decide the writ petitions in favour of Nurujjaman and Oliul considering the decision in Kalinagar Girls’ High School (supra) (which laid down the law that for appointment on a particular post, the rules which were prevalent at the time when the vacancy arose would be relevant for adherence) and directed the DIoS to consider the panels in the light of the observations made therein. The DIoS, left with no area of discretion, had no option but to approve the panels. Mr. The DIoS, left with no area of discretion, had no option but to approve the panels. Mr. Mukherjee has drawn our attention to the fact that the decision in Kalinagar Girls High School (supra) has since been set aside by the Supreme Court and for this additional reason too, the judgment and order impugned in the appeals preferred by Raihanul and Muklesur cannot sustain in law. 42. In the result, the judgment and order under challenge in FMA 207-8 of 2012 stands set aside. The consequence of setting aside of the same is that the offers of appointment issued to Nurujjaman and Oliul, joining of the respective posts by them and approval of their service by the DIoS shall be of no effect. The appeals, accordingly, stand allowed, without order for costs. 43. Having regard to the above factual perspective and considering that fresh rules have come into force, we direct that the said posts in the said madrasah shall be filled up in accordance with the existing rules. In so directing, we have been guided by the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2011 (2) CHN (CAL) 1021 [Tulsi Roy vs. Krishanu Roy]. 44. Photo copy of this judgment and order duly signed by the Assistant Court Officer, shall be retained with the records of all other appeals except MAT 340 of 2012. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied, may be furnished to the applicant at an early date. Debi Prosad Dey, J. : I agree.