Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) The Writ petitioner was selected by the Madrasha after holding an interview by the concerned Madrasha. However, such selection of the writ petitioner was not approved by the District Inspector of School on the ground that there has been a violation of the recruitment rules. According to the Labour Directorate guide lines for the concerned post, the Employment Exchange should have sent 20 names. In the instant case by mistake the Employment Exchange sent 13 names. However, on being pointed out by the Madrasha Authority, the Employment Exchange sent the subsequent list of 7 names of complete the list of 20 candidates. After holding interview of the said 20 candidates, the writ petitioner was selected and the approval was asked for from the District Inspector of School. The District Inspector of School refused to approve the said panel and observed that the list of subsequent names should not have been asked for by the Madrasha and it is in effect the 2nd list which is not permitted in terms of the recruitment rules. The writ petitioner has challenged such decision of the District Inspector of School by way of a writ petition. The said writ petition was heard by Shyamal Kr. Sen, J. (as His Lordship then was) wherein His Lordship by a judgment and order dated 11th September 1997 quashed the order of the District Inspector of School and the question for approval was sent for consideration to the Director of School Education. In the said judgment and order His Lordship has observed that the contention of the writ petitioner appears to be correct. Considering the said facts His Lordship quashed the order of the District Inspector of School. The Director of School Education upon hearing passed a reasoned order affirming the order of the District Inspector of School on the same ground which was rejected by His Lordship by order dated 11th September 1997. Ld. Advocate appearing for the State Authority has drawn my attention to the relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules wherein it has been provided that no 2nd list should be obtained from the Employment Exchange. Relying on the said provisions, the ld. Advocate for the State submits that the subsequent list containing seven names was in effect the 2nd list and is prohibited in the Recruitment Rules. He also submits that the guide-lines issued by the Labour Department, Govt. of W.B. cannot have any over-riding effect to the Recruitment Rules.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has drawn my attention to a Single Bench decision of this Court in C.O. 11531(W) of 1996 (Sukumar Banerjee v. State of W.B.) wherein the self-same issue has been decided against the State/Respondent. I have carefully gone to the said judgment and order I am in agreement with the decision of the said Single Bench.
(3.) The subsequent list containing 7 names, in my view, is not a 2nd list which is prohibited in the recruitment rules. It was incumbent upon the Employment Exchange to sent 20 names as per the Labour Directorate guide- lines. It was a patent mistake on the part of the Employment Exchange to sent 13 names. However, the Employment Exchange corrected such mistake by sending the subsequent 7 names, on being pointed out by the Madrasha Authority, of the subsequent list was sent much prior to the interview and the interview was held on the basis of the composite list of 20 candidates. So it is one and single list and the selection process has thereby not violated any of the provisions of the Recruitment Rules.;