JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed before this Court challenging the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Hooghly (S.E.) being annexure- ‘J’ to the writ petition. This order was passed by the said D.I. (Hooghly) in compliance with the order passed by Hon’ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose on 01/04/1999 in W.P. No. 29466(W) of 1997. The fact made out in the writ petition in brief is as follows:
2. The School named “Nikash Monaichandi Junior High School (hereinafter termed as said School) wanted to appoint a teacher in language group (English) and as such prayed for prior permission from the D.I. of Schools, Hooghly and the said D.I. accordingly, granted permission to appoint an English teacher having qualification B.A. passed with English as combination subject, preferably trained.
3. According to the petitioner it appeared from the memo of the D.I. through which prior permission was granted, the name of a candidate one Sri Sachindranath Ghosh was forwarded from the live register maintained by the Office of the D.I. Said Sri Sachindranath Ghosh was working as Clerk of the said School.
4. However, getting the said prior permission from the D.I. to fill up the post, the School authorities sent requisition to the regional Employment Exchange, Seerampore, for sending names. On receipt of the said requisition, the regional Employment Exchange, Seerampore sponsored the names of twelve persons for the said post of Assistant Teacher in English.
5. The Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said School sent letters of interview to the respective candidates. The petitioner was also directed to send the attested copies of certificates and testimonials to the said School before ten days of holding the said interview.
6. In summary, the petitioner got the interview for the post of Assistant Teacher in English of the said School. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on or about 24th August, 1997. The said Selection Committee consisted of five members. According to the petitioner, he successfully appeared at the oral and administrative tests. After the interview as held, the Secretary of the Managing Committee in coming to know from the markings that the petitioner was placed as No. l in the said panel inasmuch as the petitioner was the only candidate having B.Ed, qualification, in collusion and connivance with few members of the Selection Committee forcibly compelled the petitioner to write on a paper as per their diktats.
Since the petitioner was not a local candidate, the petitioner had no alternative but to write as per the diktat as indicated above in the said paper and to put his signature over there.
7. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said paper was procured by the Secretary of the Managing Committee upon sole consideration that the petitioner was the only B.Ed, and according to the recruitment rules none, including the Clerk of the School was able to acquire marks above the petitioner.
8. The petitioner further alleged that immediately after the said incident he lodged a complaint before the Head of the institution stating that he had to sign the said paper under compelling circumstances at the diktat of one of the members of the Selection Committee.
9. The petitioner alleged that the statements given on the said paper was not at all genuine and the petitioner is conversant with Bengali language and is quite competent to teach in any junior High School in the concerned subject.
10. On or about 26th August, 1997 the petitioner also lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Jangipara Police Station, Hooghly where the writ petitioner mentioned the same and prayed for taking necessary action. Again, on 26th August, 1997 the petitioner lodged another complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Seerampore Police Station, Hooghly.
11. On 27th August, 1997 the petitioner also made a representation before the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly against the acts of the members of the Selection Committee in holding the interview for the post of Assistant Teacher in English of the said School. The petitioner also stated that he duly appeared at the interview on 24th August, 1997 as his name was appearing at Sl. No. 5 and successfully completed the oral and demonstration test to the satisfaction of the Selection Committee. After the said interview the Secretary of the Managing Committee in collusion and connivance with the members procured the letter under threat to the extent that the petitioner does not know Bengali. The petitioner came to know that the B.Ed, qualification was not taken into account. The petitioner apprehended that the records would be tampered against as the petitioner was the only trained candidate. The petitioner had annexed the letter and marked annexure-D to the writ petition.
12. According to the petitioner, ultimately, the Secretary of the School made a communication to the petitioner through Registered Post with A/D on 29th August, 1997 from where the petitioner came to know that the authority denied the allegations as made by the petitioner on 24th August, 1997 and the authority rejected the petitioner’s prayer. A true copy of the postal communication through Registered with A/D is annexed to the writ petition as annexure-‘E’.
13. According to the petitioner, after receiving the communication, the petitioner made a complaint before the Secretary of the School authority with copy to all concerned. Through this letter of complaint the petitioner categorically explained that reason behind his ouster from the zone of consideration is wholly illegal and contrary to the recruitment rules and policies and under any stretch of imagination the Selection Committee cannot ask the petitioner to satisfy their requirements in such a manner particularly when the petitioner is quite competent to teach the students in Bengali medium School as English Teacher. A true copy of the said representation to the Secretary has been made annexure-‘F’ to the writ petition.
14. According to the petitioner even though the Selection was held on 24th August, 1997 the Managing Committee of the School concerned did not submit the panel to the D.L. (S.E.), Hooghly for approval
15. The petitioner thereafter came to know from the Office of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly regarding the dubious practice of the Managing Committee from the fact that without sending the panel to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly, the Secretary of the School had sent a letter to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly seeking permission as to what the Managing Committee would do inasmuch as the Selection Committee had not prepared the panel in accordance with rules. According to the petitioner, he also came to know that District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly had advised the Secretary of the Managing Committee to act in terms of the rules and send the panel after duly completed by the said Selection Committee. In spite of the said direction the Managing Committee has not forwarded the said panel to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly for his consideration and approval.
16. At this stage, on or about 3rd October, 1997 the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 29466(W) of 1997 challenging the inaction of the School authorities in sending the panel for approval of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly. After hearing, His Lordship Hon’ble Justice N.K. Mitra (As His Lordship then was) granted status quo regarding the approval of the panel and directed the matter to appear after Puja Vacation.
17. According to the petitioner, on or about 1st April, 1998 the said writ petition came up for hearing before Hon’ble Justice Pinaki Chanda Ghose and upon hearing His Lordship passed an order in the manner as follows:
In the event the selection process started before the coming into force of the School Service Commission Act the concerned authorities be directed to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to the approval of the panel in accordance with the provisions of law prevailing then within a period of 6 weeks from the date of communication of the order.
A copy of the order is annexed to the writ petition marking annexure-‘G’.
18. The petitioner states that thereafter the petitioner came to know that after the direction was issued by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly to submit the duly completed panel, the Managing Committee submitted a panel in which the qualification of B.Ed, of the petitioner was not included and as such, no award of marks was made by the Selection Committee. The petitioner also came to know that no marks were awarded to any candidate for oral and demonstration test and even the panel was not signed by all the members of the Selection Committee.
19. The petitioner made representation before the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly, highlighting the deliberate laches on the part of the Selection Committee and requested him to issue direction upon the School for consideration of the panel-in-question.
20. By Memo being No. l38(4)/Law dated 14th January, 1999 the istrict Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly directed the petitioner and the Secretary of the said School to attend a hearing before him on 27th January, 1999 at his chamber in terms of the order passed by Hon’ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose.
21. The petitioner submitted that on or about 27th January, 1999 the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Hooghly took up the hearing and mentioned the fact of reluctance in preparing the panel inasmuch as neither the marks in respect of B.Ed. Degree was awarded nor any marks were awarded in respect of oral and demonstration test to all the candidates who appeared before the Selection Committee.
22. According to the petitioner, the D.I. also mentioned the fact that the Selection Committee written on the foot of the assessment sheet that whatever the achievement do the candidates have academically, none of them stands viva voce or in the demonstration lesson and hence the panel could not be made. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly field that the same was in violation of the Government Rules and Order and as such, D.I. through his memo directed the School authorities to submit a complete assessment sheet duly signed by the members of the Selection Committee before him. The xerox copy said memo has been made annexure – ‘H’.
23. The petitioner states that Managing Committee of the said School was so vindictive that it had not taken any action to comply with the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly. Accordingly, District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly through Memo being No. 981/1(2)/ Law dated 09/08/1999 sent a reminder to the Secretary of the said School for compliance of the order within 15 days from the date of issuance of the memo. True copy of the said memo has been made annexure-T.
24. The petitioner further submits that the Secretary of the Managing Committee thereafter submitted the second panel to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly on 19th August, 1999 wherein the B.Ed, qualification acquired by the petitioner was not mentioned.
25. According to the petitioner, upon realising that serious illegalities were committed, the Secretary, on 11th October, 1999 rectified the panel by awarding marks for B.Ed, qualification. But in each panel the marks for oral and demonstration were marked ‘0’ to all the candidates.
26. District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly, on or about 30th November, 1999 took up hearing and after perusing the panels observed that the School authority did not prepare the panel for the Assistant Teacher since no candidate stand in viva voce or in the demonstration lesson. Accordingly, he held that since the School authority did not prepare any panel despite the fact that marking was, made in the academic aspect of all the interviewing candidates, the petitioner cannot be given any relief towards the approval of the panel in-question, though, the petitioner secured highest marks for his academic attainment. Through Memo being No. 1814(3)/Law dated 30th November, 1999 the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly communicated the said decision to all concerned including the petitions which has been made annexure-‘J’ to the writ petition.
27. Challenging the said Memo being No. 1814(3)/Law dated 30th November, 1999 of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly the petitioner filed this writ petition.
28. This matter appeared in the list and was adjourned on several times but neither any opposition was filed nor anybody contested the writ petition on behalf of the respondents. Ultimately, the Court was left with no option but to hear out the learned Counsel for the petitioner and it was ultimately, reserved for Judgment.
29. In the aforesaid circumstances, the allegations of the petitioner remained uncontroverted. It is a fact that following the procedural formalities the petitioner was interviewed for the post or Assistant Teacher in English on 24/08/1997. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed that a panel was prepared by the School authorities and was submitted before the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly. However, finding no option the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 29466(W) of 1997. It was the allegation of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly that the Selection Committee refused to prepare any panel and on the above referred writ petition Hon’ble Justice N.K. Mitra (As His Lordship then was) passed an order to maintain status quo and directed the matter to appear for hearing two weeks after long vacation.
30. Thereafter the matter came up for hearing before Hon’ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose on 01/04/1998 when His Lordship directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to approval of the panel in accordance with law prevailing then within six weeks from the date of communication of the order.
31. In view of the said order passed by His Lordship on 0 1/04/1998 the then District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly asked the School authorities to submit the panel with relevant papers to his Office as according to him, no panel with other papers was submitted by the School authority. A reminder order was issued dated 09/03/1999 asking the School authorities to submit the panel with other relevant papers through D.I.’s Office Memo dated 27/10/1998.
32. In pursuance of the order passed by His Lordship, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly heard the matter on 27/01/1999 and formed an opinion that the School will submit complete assessment sheet duly signed by the members of the Selection Committee maintaining and observing the norms of Recruitment Rules.
33. The Head Master submitted a letter dated 19/08/1999 along with complete assessment sheet of interview board regarding the appointment of Assistant Teacher (English) and the resolution of the Managing Committee along with other papers were also sent.
34. The Office of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly through a memo dated 22/09/1999 requested the School authorities to award marks on B.Ed. Certificate of the petitioner and re-submit the same to the Office of D.I.
35. Now, all the papers were re-submitted including the Broad Sheet in which the marks for B.Ed. Certificate of the petitioner was awarded.
36. At this stage, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly informed the petitioner that since the School authority did not prepare any panel though the marking was made in the academic inspect of the interviewing candidate, the petitioner cannot be given any relief towards approval of the panel-in-question, in spite of the fact that the petitioner secured highest marks for his academic attainment. In this manner the D.I. disposed of the matter alleging compliance with the order passed by the High Court on 01/04/1998.
37. Challenging such action of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly, the petitioner moved the instant writ petition.
38. Now all the papers are with the D.I. concerned, the whole grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given appointment and/or the panel in which he stood first was not at all considered.
39. The Recruitment Rules prevalent at that time was that after the interview of the candidates the Selection Committee will prepare the panel of three candidates in order or merit to the District Inspector of Schools concerned and the D.I. in terms of Rule 28(2) of the Management Rules, 1969 will approve the panel or if he is not satisfied, will refer it to the Director or School Education. But in this case D.I. did nothing- neither he approved the panel nor he sent the panel to the Director in order of merit. The petitioner was the first candidate but for any reason whatsoever, the D.I. did not approve the panel. If the D.I. is in disagreement with the School authority regarding the preparation of the panel, he should have directed the School authority as he directed earlier or referred it to his prior approval.
40. The D.I. himself, for the reason unknown to the petitioner or unknown to the law cannot issue such a memo as impugned in this writ petition. Or if he is to approve the panel, the Rule provides that D.I. will approve the panel within a fortnight from the date of its submission. In this case after receiving the complete papers the D.I. failed to act in accordance with law. Order of Hon’ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose was, to consider the matter in accordance with law but the D.I. in this case did not follow the law.
41. The Recruitment Rules are not statutory but devoid of any other instruction, this administrative order is obligatory or binding in nature. The D.I. is to follow the same.
42. I, therefore, direct the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly to approve the panel of the Assistant Teacher in English in which the petitioner stood first and send it to the School authority for appointment within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order.
43. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly will also send intimation to the petitioner sufficiently ahead so that the petitioner can give is joining report to the School as early as possible.
44. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned memo of the D.I. being Memo No. l814(3)/Law dated 30/11/1999 is set aside.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties expeditiously upon usual undertaking.