S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 10.3.98 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this court in W.P. No. 2579 (W) of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the respondent herein was allowed. The said order reads thus : "Since the panel sent by the school authorities to the District Inspector of Schools concerned in December, 1996 is still lying undisposed of by the District Inspector of Schools concerned for reasons best known to him, though under the relevant Rules he is to dispose of the panel within thirty days from the date of receipt of such panel, it should be deemed that the panel was duly prepared by the school authorities and there is no legal impediment to approve the said panel. Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools concerned is directed to accord approval of the said panel, positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communications of this order." Although the said order cannot be sustained keeping in view the latest decision of the Apex Court in Nooruddin Mallick v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1998(8) SCC 143, inasmuch as the court cannot usurp unto itself the function of the statutory authority and that too only on the ground that within the time prescribed the statutory had not passed an order. It is now a well settled principles of law that whenever a statutory functionary is required to perform some functions within a certain time, the same is directory in nature. In a case where the inaction on the part of the statutory functionary to pass an appropriate order which he is obliged to do under the provision of statute is brought to the notice of the court, the court keeping in view the doctrine of 'reasonableness' may direct him to pass an appropriate order within a reasonable time. But only because no order had been passed within the specified time the same by itself would not be a ground to pass such order although the parties had not brought before the court the relevant records which impels the court to arrive at a decision that the statutory authority could not have passed any order other than that intended to be passed by the court.
(2.) However, in the instant case this court has not only been called upon to hear the aforementioned appeal but also has been called upon to dispose of two writ applications being W.P. No. 11085 (W) of 1997 (Enaul Haque v. State of W.B. & Ors.) and W.P. No. 11311 (W) of 1997 (Ramjan Ali v. The State of W.B. & Ors.) i.e. the appellant and the private respondent in the appeal.
(3.) For the said purpose let us take into consideration the basic fact of the matter.;