JUDGMENT Arijit Banerjee, J. - A Memo dated 12 December, 2014 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur, being the respondent no.3, is under challenge in this writ petition. By the said Memo, the respondent no.3 declined to grant approval to three panels, one for a Group-C post and two for Group-D posts, in Karanji Senior Madrasah (in short, 'the said Madrasah'). The petitioners were applicants to the concerned posts. 2. One Group-C post and three Group-D posts fell vacant in the said Madrasah. The Madrasah Authorities approached the DI of Schools as also the Additional DI of Schools for grant of permission for filling up the said posts. The Additional DI of Schools vide Memo dated 5 August, 2008 granted permission for filling up one GroupC post (clerk) and three Group-D posts (two males and one female). Pursuant to such permission, the Madrasah Authorities took steps for filling up the said posts and conducted a selection process after publishing advertisement in the local newspapers. 3. In view of the fact that the panel for the Group-C post and the two Group-D posts (male) were not prepared and forwarded to the office of the DI of Schools for approval, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WP 17629 (W) of 2011. By an order dated 27 March, 2012 a Learned Judge of this Court directed the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah to forward the panels for the said three posts along with connected papers to the DI of Schools within two weeks from the date of communication of the said order. The DI of Schools was directed to take steps, as he may think fit, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks after the papers were submitted to him. Accordingly, the three panels were forwarded to the concerned DI of Schools. 4. By a Memo dated 27 August, 2012, the DI of Schools refused to approve the said panels solely on the ground that prior sanction of the DI of Schools had not been obtained and the Additional DI of Schools was not authorized to grant such permission under the applicable Recruitment Rules. This Memo was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing WP 20620 (W) of 2012. This Memo was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing WP 20620 (W) of 2012. By an order darted 1 August, 2014 a Learned Judge of this Court set aside the said Memo and directed the DI of Schools to reconsider the matter of approval of the panels and proceed to approve the same, if they were otherwise found to have been prepared in accordance with law preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the said order to the DI of Schools. The Learned Judge relied on an order dated 28 August, 2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in MAT 671 of 2012 and a Government Memo dated 27 August, 2012 bearing no.1360 SE (Law)/SL/5S198/2012 and held that the Additional DI of Schools (SE) was duly authorised to independently dispose of matters with regard to grant of prior permission, approval of panels and approval of appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff. 5. Alleging non-compliance with the order dated 1 August, 2014, the petitioners moved a contempt application before the Learned Single Judge being CPAN 2215 of 2014. In the said contempt proceeding, on 16 January, 2015, the DI of Schools (alleged contemnor) produced a copy of a Memo dated 12 December, 2014, the operative portion whereof reads as follows: "So, considering the above observations and perusing all relevant papers of the above said three panels and in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble Judge Arindam Sinha of Calcutta High Court, dated 04.08.2014, I reconsidered the matter of approval of the panels and had taken decision as follows: 'The preparation of such panels in respect of awarding marks, inaccurate markings from selection committee members, unauthentic overwriting which may deviate the ranking of candidates appeared in the interview, absence of all selection committee members in the interview and forwarding the panels by unauthorised person to the approving authority are highly irregular and beyond the Recruitment Rules, prevalent at the material point of time. Hence, such three panels in question cannot be approved, as well as rejected'." 6. Regarding preparation of the three panels, the following common observations were made by the DI of Schools:- "1. The present M.C. of the said Madrasah who had taken aver charges from pervious M.C on 28.09.2011, did not submit the panel of Gr.D post. 2. Hence, such three panels in question cannot be approved, as well as rejected'." 6. Regarding preparation of the three panels, the following common observations were made by the DI of Schools:- "1. The present M.C. of the said Madrasah who had taken aver charges from pervious M.C on 28.09.2011, did not submit the panel of Gr.D post. 2. Whereas the said panel was submitted by the former Secretary who has no locus standi to submit the same as per Recruitment Rules. 3. Whereas present Managing Committee had informed previous Secretary to submit the panel to them vide letter number KSM/120/12 dated 17.03.2012 within 7 days, so that they can submit the same to the approving authority as per Recruitment Rules. 4. Whereas in the meeting of selection Committee regarding preparation of this panel, it appears that the Secretary Mainul Hoque did not sign on the score sheet and subject expert Abdul Kayum did not participate in the meeting of selection Committee and did not submit individual score sheet. For this reason the panel was not prepared. 5. Whereas panel submitted by former Secretary to ADI, Gangarampur, it is found that Abdul Kayum & Mainul Hoque (former Secretary) signed on score sheet but there is no sign from the end of TIC & Panchayet Nominee. 6. As per resolution of selection Committee dated 29.06.2011, Abdul Kayum did not participate in the said meeting and did not submit individual score sheet as like as Abdul Mazid (PN). But in the panel papers it is found that both of them signed. 7. Whereas only two selection Committee members signed on all score sheets but the Secretary and TIC did not sign on it. For this reason selection procedure is not accordance with Recruitment Rules, rather incomplete in true sense. 8. In respect of awarding marks some overwriting were observed, in case of Bhopal Roy, Jaidur Rahaman, Liakat Ali without any proper authentication which is highly irregular." 7. The petitioners contended before the Learned Judge hearing the contempt application that the Memo dated 12 December, 2014 was wholly erroneous and based on incorrect facts. By an order dated 19 June, 2015, the Learned Judge recorded the submission made on behalf of the alleged contemnor being the concerned DI that four weeks' time be given to him to reconsider the matter and file a fresh report. By an order dated 19 June, 2015, the Learned Judge recorded the submission made on behalf of the alleged contemnor being the concerned DI that four weeks' time be given to him to reconsider the matter and file a fresh report. Such submission was accepted and the contempt application was adjourned for four weeks. 8. Thereafter, the DI of Schools issued a Memo dated 3 July, 2015 approving all the three panels. The said Memo was challenged by the Teacher-in-Charge of the said Madrasah by filing WP 18681 (W) of 2015. By an order dated 18 November, 2015, a Learned Judge of this Court set aside the impugned Memo dated 3 July, 2015. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "The impugned order dated July 3, 2015 has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools in excess of his jurisdiction. He had become functus officio by passing his order dated December 12, 2014. He does not have the right of review of his own decision. The impugned order dated July 3, 2015 does not seek to correct any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated December 12, 2014. On the contrary, the impugned order dated July 3, 2015 is diametrically opposite to that of the order dated December 12, 2014. Furthermore and in any event, the impugned order dated July 3, 2015 is uniformed with reasons. The impugned order dated July 3, 2015 proceeds on the erroneous basis that the Court had directed reconsideration of the order dated December 12, 2014. No such order of this Court has been placed before me to show that the Court had directed the District Inspector of Schools to reconsider the matter afresh after December 12, 2014. The order dated June 19, 2015 passed in the contempt proceeding in connection with the earlier writ petition filed in this regard cannot be construed to mean that the Court while exercising contempt jurisdiction had allowed the District Inspector of Schools to reconsider his decision dated December 12, 2014. Such order records the desire of the concerned District Inspector of Schools for reconsideration. The District Inspector of Schools has no power or authority to review or reconsider his earlier order. He has no power or authority to express a desire to do so for the purpose of correcting an error apparent on the face of the record. Such order records the desire of the concerned District Inspector of Schools for reconsideration. The District Inspector of Schools has no power or authority to review or reconsider his earlier order. He has no power or authority to express a desire to do so for the purpose of correcting an error apparent on the face of the record. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the private respondents, the impugned order dated July 3, 2015 is set aside. This order, however, will not prevent any of the parties aggrieved by the order dated December 12, 2014 to assail the same in accordance with law, if they are so entitled to." 9. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the order dated 18 November, 2015, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition assailing the Memo dated 12 December, 2014. 10. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the impugned Memo records facts which are erroneous and on the basis of such erroneous facts approval to the three panels has been declined. A bunch of documents have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, with reference to which, Learned Counsel for the petitioners attempted to demonstrate that was has been recorded in the impugned Memo is not factually correct. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.5 & 6 submitted that this writ application is not maintainable. It was submitted that one of the candidates for the vacant non-teaching posts in the said Madrasah, being aggrieved by the selection process, had challenged such selection process relying on a Memo dated 10 August, 2011 issued by the concerned Additional DI of Schools (SE) to the effect that recruitment of non-teaching staff of the said Madrasah was regulated by G.O. No.363 (19) ME dated 4 June, 2009 and that the Madrasah Authorities could not conduct the selection process. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Learned Judge by an order dated 30 November, 2012, the operative portion whereof reads as follows: "Since the respondent no.5 by the said Memo has intimated that recruitment of non-teaching staff is regulated by G.O. dated 4 June, 2009 the selection process adopted by respondent nos. 6 & 7 cannot be sustained and is thus set aside and quashed. The writ petition is thus, allowed. 6 & 7 cannot be sustained and is thus set aside and quashed. The writ petition is thus, allowed. Accordingly, the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission, the respondent no.3, is directed to undertake such selection in accordance with the provisions contained in the Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 at the earliest. Accordingly the respondent nos.6 & 7 are directed to notify the vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Dakshin Dinajpur, the respondent no.4 within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and the respondent no.4 in his turn shall intimate the Madrasah Service Commission regarding the vacancy within a fortnight thereafter." 12. Relying on the aforesaid order, Learned Counsel for the said respondents submitted that the question of the DI of Schools approving or disapproving the three panels prepared pursuant to a selection process conducted by the Madrasah Authorities, cannot and does not arise. Therefore, the Memo dated 12 December, 2014 which is challenged in this writ petition, is infructuous and has no effect in the eye of law. Consequently, this writ petition is meaningless. 13. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties. 14. It is correct, as appears from the records, that a Learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 30 November, 2012 passed in WP 17659 (W) of 2012 set aside the entire selection process undertaken by the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah and directed the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission to conduct such selection process in accordance with the provisions of the Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008. Hence, I am inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the contesting respondents that there was no scope for the DI of Schools to issue the Memo dated 12 December, 2014 withholding approval to the concerned panels. The said panels had been prepared pursuant to a selection process conducted by the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah. The selection process was set aside by a Learned Judge by an order dated 30 November, 2012. I am told that there was no challenge to the said order which therefore, attained finality. Consequently, the question of the DI of Schools approving or disapproving the said panels could not have arisen at all. 15. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order dated 30 November, 2012 is an erroneous order. I am told that there was no challenge to the said order which therefore, attained finality. Consequently, the question of the DI of Schools approving or disapproving the said panels could not have arisen at all. 15. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order dated 30 November, 2012 is an erroneous order. I am not prepared to countenance such an argument and indeed I cannot do so. The question of this Court sitting in appeal over an order of a Learned Judge sitting in coordinate jurisdiction, cannot arise. 16. It is evident that when the order dated 1 August, 2014 was passed by the Learned Judge in WP 20620 (W) of 2012 or when the orders were passed in the contempt jurisdiction or when the order dated 18 November, 2015 was passed by the Learned Judge in WP 18681 (W) of 2015, the order dated 30 November, 2012 passed in WP 17659 (W) of 2012 was not placed before this Court. Had it been pointed out to this Court that the entire selection process in question had been set aside by an order dated 30 November, 2012, surely this Court would not have passed orders regarding whether or not the DI of Schools should approve the panels prepared pursuant to the selection process which stood quashed. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, this writ petition is an exercise in futility. The impugned Memo dated 12 December, 2014 has no effect in the eye of law. Hence, it makes no difference whether the impugned Memo is quashed or not. 18. Even otherwise, even if this Court had not set aside the selection process by its order dated 30 November, 2012, I would have been very reluctant to entertain this writ petition. This is because whether or not the impugned Memo dated 12 December, 2014 is sustainable is a disputed question of facts. The comments of the DI of Schools regarding the preparation of the three panels have been noted above. These are factual assertions. The petitioners sought to demonstrate that these assertions are factually incorrect by referring to various documents. I am conscious that there is no absolute bar to the Writ Court entertaining disputed questions of fact. However, generally and unless exceptional circumstances exist, the Writ Court does not entertain an application involving disputed questions of fact. These are factual assertions. The petitioners sought to demonstrate that these assertions are factually incorrect by referring to various documents. I am conscious that there is no absolute bar to the Writ Court entertaining disputed questions of fact. However, generally and unless exceptional circumstances exist, the Writ Court does not entertain an application involving disputed questions of fact. The High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not an appropriate or convenient forum for deciding disputed questions of fact. 19. By reason of what I have recorded above, I am unable to pass any order on this writ application except holding, as I have recorded above, that the impugned Memo dated 12 December, 2014 is meaningless and has no effect in the eye of law. 20. Wp No.29243 (W) of 2015 is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.