A.K.Mathur, CJ. - (1.) This reference has been made by the learned single Judge because he does not agree with the finding given in the case of Birendra Pratap Singh by G.R. Bhattacharya, J. (as His Lordship then was). Therefore, the learned single Judge referred the matter before a Larger Bench for answer that whether the view taken by the Bhattacharya, J. in that case is correct or not.
(2.) The learned single Judge framed three questions for answer before a Larger Bench which reads thus: (a) Whether the District Inspector of Schools (SE) of any District has any power/jurisdiction to cancel the panel relating to the interview for appointment of a candidate for the post of teaching and non-teaching staff in terms of the recruitment rule issued by Director of School Education, West Bengal and whether in view of the judgment of this Court in Birendra Pratap Singh (supra) case being an unreported judgment of G.R. Bhattacharya, J. the decision as passed by the District Inspector of Schools concerned in the present case directing fresh interview would be declared as nullity. (b) Whether in view of the decision dated 25th August, 1992 directing fresh interview in view of the irregularities in preparation of the earlier panel, the subsequent decision dated 17th March, 1993 confirming such and in absence of any further rectification of the panel, the approval of panel with reference to the interview dated 3.3.91 as done by the District Inspector of Schools concerned on 28th March, 1995 would be considered as valid exercise of power and whether such can be given effect to. (c) Whether the documents on the basis of which the earlier panel was cancelled and thereby the subsequent panel has been prepared by a fresh interview would be considered as valid and to that effect fate of the writ application."
(3.) Before we advert to answer these three questions as framed by the learned single Judge it may be relevant to state the brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this reference. In Taherpur Girls' High School an interview was held for the post of a clerk and a panel was prepared by the Selection Committee, the same was approved by the Managing Committee and thereafter the same was sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 22nd July, 1991. This panel was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools by his communication dated 25th August, 1992 as he found that there are certain defects and therefore he directed for preparation of a fresh panel after holding interview following the existing Rules. Thereafter one writ petition was filed before this Court which was registered as Civil Order No. 2119(W) of 1993 and the Hon'ble Justice Sushanta Chatterjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) disposed of the writ petition on 13.1.1993 directing the District Inspector of Schools to take effective steps regarding approval of the panel within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. Thereafter on 17th March, 1993 the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance or the order passed by the learned single Judge issued an order that since the panel is not worthy of approval because of certain irregularities the Managing Committee after its reconstitution shall take steps for rectification of the panel. Then again on 16th August, 1994 the District Inspector of Schools further reminded the Administrator of the Girls' School to take steps in the matter regarding rectification of the panel in the light of the directions given by Sushanta Chatterjee, J. urgently. Meanwhile new Managing Committee started taking fresh steps in the light of the communication sent by the D.I. dated 25th August, 1992, 17th March, 1993 and 16th August, 1994 by issuing fresh interview letters for selection for the post of clerk to the sponsored candidates and thereafter they prepared the panel. On 1st September, 1995 the new Managing Committee issued letters of interview to the sponsored candidates for recruitment to the post of clerk. On 28th August, 1995 the new D.I. approved the panel sent by the School which was objected to by the earlier D.I. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ being Civil order No. 16826(W)/95 seeking a Mandamus for directing the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner in view of the approval given by the D.I. on 28th August, 1995. In this factual controversy the learned single Judge rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner being prayer 'A' to the writ petition and also held the order of approval dated 28th March, 1995 being annexure 'E' to the writ petition to be bad. But the learned single Judge recorded his disagreement with regard to the view taken by G.R. Bhattacharya, J. that under Rule 28(2) D.I. can only approve appointment and no approval of the panel for appointment. The view taken by Bhattacharya, J. is not correct; and referred the present controversy before us. Since the reference has been made by the learned single Judge our answer is as above.;