Barin Ghosh, J. - (1.) The respondent school obtained permission to fill up the permanent vacancy of the Assistant Teacher in English and, therefore, took steps to recruit a suitable candidate for the said post. It applied to the local Employment Exchange for sponsoring candidates. The local Employment Exchange sponsored the candidates. In addition to that, pursuant to the Court's order, the petitioner was permitted to offer his candidature to fill up the said post. Each of those eligible candidates were given an interview letter fixing the date of interview on 20th September, 1997 Those interview letters were sent by registered post and were posted on 28th August, 1997. For some reason or the other, on 20th September, 1997, the interview could not beheld. On that date it was decided that the interview scheduled to be held on 20th September, 1997 stand postponed till 27th September, 1997. On 20th September, 1997 only four candidates appeared before the Interview Board. Each one of them against their signature was informed that the interview would be held on 27th September. 1997. In addition to that the school by registered post once again intimated each of the candidates that the interview would be held on 27th September, 1997 instead of 20th September, 1997. Those registered packets were posted on 22nd September, 1997. On 27th September, 1997 once again only four candidates came to the interview who had come on 20th September, 1997. Amongst them, selection was made and the panel was prepared and the same having been accepted by the Managing Committee of the School, was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Siliguri for his approval. On the ground, that the date of interview was actually held, had been fixed in violation of the Rules of Recruitment, being Rule 6B(q), as was then prevalent, which later on became Rule 5(q) and now Rule 6(r). The said Rule provides that the candidates shall be called for by registered postcard or inland letter with acknowledgment due with a margin of at least 20 days of the date of posting and the date of interview. The District Inspector of Schools, Siliguri thought that since the decision to postpone the interview fixed on 20th September, 1997 to 27th September, 1997, was communicated to the candidates within a period of less than 20 days, the interview held on 27th September, 1997 was in violation of the Rules of Recruitment. The Rule does not speak about the postponed date of interview. The period of 20 days fixed in the Rules is to ensure that reasonable opportunity is given to the candidates to appear in the interview. If any candidate, who was otherwise eligible to appear but having received the intimation in regard to the postponed date of the interview within a period of less than 20 days, failed to attend the interview on the postponed date, and, accordingly, had expressed a grievance either to the school authority or to the District Inspector of Schools, Siliguri, the matter may have had been dealt within a proper perspective, despite the fact that on the first date of interview he had not appeared for the simple reason that the first date of interview as originally fixed may not have been convenient for such person, but the later postponed date may have had been convenient for him.
(2.) In the instant case, however, there is no such complaint either before the school authority or before the District Inspector of Schools, Siliguri. In those circumstances, to me, it does not appear that the District Inspector of Schools, Siliguri has approached the matter in the proper perspective. He ought to have had considered the matter in the proper perspective. He ought to have had taken into consideration the fact that there was in fact 20 days margin between the registration of the postcards inviting all the eligible candidates to appear at the interview on the date of interview as was originally fixed. Only four candidates appeared on the fixed date. None of those four candidates expressed their grievance for refixing the date of interview on 27th September, 1997. Each of those candidates appeared at the interview on 27th September, 1997. In addition, the school authority intimated all others who did not appear on 20th September, 1997 that the interview has been postponed till 27th September, 1997. Merely because the interview was postponed till 27th September, 1997 and not after 20 days from 20th September, 1997, the selection ought not to have had been rejected.
(3.) I, accordingly, dispose of this writ petition and direct the District Inspector of Schools, Siliguri to reconsider the request made by the Managing Committee of the respondent school seeking approval of the panel ignoring it decision dated 20th September, 1997 and let the District Inspector of Schools, Siliguri reconsider the matter within two weeks from the date of the communication of this order.;