Talukdar, J. - (1.) QUINTESSENTIALLY a molecular point arises for our consideration as to whether a Division Bench decision is binding on us, which was based on a previous Supreme Court Judgment, that was later overruled by a Larger Bench.
(2.) IN the trajectory of the same, we would have to examine the Order rendered by the Hon'ble Trial Court whereby the directions for according sanction for appointment in favour of the respondent No.1 herein was passed. That has been carried at the instance of the State of West Bengal in this appeal. Bereft of details in connection with W.P. No.21354(W) of 2004, the Hon'ble Trial Court directed the respondent No.3 to send necessary papers regarding appointment of the respondent No. 1 to the appellant No.3, who will forward the same to the appellant No. 2, who, in turn will approve the appointment of respondent No. 1 within two weeks. The State of West Bengal has concentrated on the following premises: "(i) In the event such a position is permitted to remain, it will result in an irregular appointment; (ii) The Managing Committee has no authority and; (iii) Without permission of the District Inspector of Schools, no appointment can be made."
(3.) ROUNDING up his submissions on the basis of those three focal aspects, Shri Wasef Ali Mondal with Smt. Shanti Das for the Appellant State of West Bengal has argued that the Order passed by Hon'ble Trial Court, unless set asidewould give rise to a very difficult situation resulting in the respondent No. 1 being appointed without following the Recruitment Rules and without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. He was of the view that even though the District Inspector of Schools had given approval earlier in respect of some other candidates; that cannot have any binding value on the Court.;