JUDGMENT : 1. In the judgment and order in WP No.15077(W) of 2017 under appeal made on 15th December 2017, a learned single judge has inter alia held: “The Commission is not vested with any power and jurisdiction to identify the legality and validity of registration of the names of the candidates under death-in-harness category. It is a settled legal proposition that a statutory body under the law is entitled to perform only those acts as are prescribed under a statute. ….. ……….. ……… …… Accordingly, this Court directs the Commission to issue recommendation, upon counselling, in favour of the petitioner for appointment to a suitable post of ‘Clerk’ in any existing vacancy within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.” 2. In other words, according to the said judgment and order, the panel prepared by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Purba Medinipur relating to compassionate appointment arising out of “died-in-harness” was sacrosanct and could not have been touched by the School Service Commission. Throughout the judgment, we do not find any reference to rule 18, particularly rule 18(5) of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009, which makes us believe that this provision was not brought to the notice of the learned judge. 3. Rule 18(5) makes it explicit that a candidate’s name may be removed from the panel, if it appears to the Commission that, inter alia, he has misrepresented facts relating to his selection. 4. In those circumstances, the Commission wrote to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Purba Medinipur on 27th June 2019 that according to the admission of the candidate, the respondent-writ petitioner had landed property fetching income which was not reflected in the formatised recommendation documents sent by the District Inspector to the Commission. The District Inspector was asked to prepare a fresh report. 5. It appears that no report was prepared by the District Inspector. Hence, the case of the respondent-writ petitioner for compassionate appointment rested there. 6. On appeal from the impugned order, on 27th August 2018 a Division Bench of this court directed the District Inspector of Schools to file the above report. The respondent-writ petitioner was also directed to submit details of his landed property and income therefrom to the said District Inspector. 6. On appeal from the impugned order, on 27th August 2018 a Division Bench of this court directed the District Inspector of Schools to file the above report. The respondent-writ petitioner was also directed to submit details of his landed property and income therefrom to the said District Inspector. This was an interim measure taken in the appeal. 7. We notice that in obedience to the said order, a report dated 25th September 2018 was made by the District Inspector of Schools. 8. In our opinion, it is a hopeless report. It stated that “the petitioner could not produce any income certificate till date.” It went on to add that the moment the respondent-writ petitioner would submit the documents, the District Inspector would proceed to ascertain the truth of the claim. 9. This is not what the District Inspector of Schools was required to do under the law. He has totally misconstrued the said interim order in appeal. 10. We set aside the report of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Purba Medinipur dated 25th September 2018. 11. On the basis of our above discussion, we have no difficulty in holding that the Commission does enjoy the power to scrutinise the panel sent to it by the District Inspector of Schools in relation to compassionate appointment arising out of “died-in-harness” cases, under rule 18(5)(d) of the said rules. The said scrutiny includes verification of the truth of the facts and documents submitted by the candidate in support of his or her claim. 12. In those circumstances, the Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction in writing the said letter dated 27th June 2017. That was prima facie endorsed by the Division Bench which directed the District Inspector of Schools to file a report. As we have noticed earlier, he has misconstrued the law and the order of this court and filed a most insupportable report. 13. Mr Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, submits that his client is in a deplorable financial condition, and that the relief, if any, should be made available to him without any delay. We appreciate this submission. 14. 13. Mr Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, submits that his client is in a deplorable financial condition, and that the relief, if any, should be made available to him without any delay. We appreciate this submission. 14. In those circumstances, we direct the respondent-writ petitioner to file an affidavit by 19th August 2019 with the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Purba Medinipur disclosing any landed property through which he derives income or make a declaration that he has no income from such source. Upon receipt of the affidavit, the District Inspector of Schools will conduct whatever inquiry he deems fit and proper by 9th September 2019. If, upon inquiry, he finds the existence of a property through which the respondent-writ petitioner derives income, he shall furnish the details of his finding to the respondent-writ petitioner by 16th September 2019. A Hearing will be given by him on 20th September 2019 giving notice thereof to the respondent-writ petitioner and allow him to participate in it. He shall pronounce a decision, either confirming the earlier decision of the District Inspector of Schools or departing from it by 30th September 2019. That decision will be sent to the School Service Commission immediately. 15. If the District Inspector of Schools endorses the earlier decision of the District Inspector, no hearing is to be held. He will send his view to the Commission by 16th September 2019. The School Service commission will proceed to treat the name of the respondent-writ petitioner in the panel and process the panel accordingly in accordance with law. 16. In case the decision is otherwise, the School Service Commission will communicate the same to the writ petitioner by 8th November 2019. 17. Both the District Inspector of Schools and the Regional Chairman of the School Service Commission will file a compliance report in this court by 18th November 2019. 18. This appeal (FMA No.2042 of 2018) is disposed of. However, list the same under the heading “To be mentioned” on 21st November 2019 to consider the compliance report of the two authorities.