- (1.) This application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the order dated 14th May, 2012 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits. Scrutinising the records we find that the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia refused to approve the panel prepared for the post of Group 'D' (Laboratory Attendant) by the school authority firstly; on the ground that the said school authority did not issue call letters to the candidates through registered post and issued advertisement in the newspaper requesting the eligible candidates to appear at the interview which according to the said District Inspector of Schools, is violative of sub-rule (7)(c) of Rule 8 of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005.
(2.) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asok Kumar Malik v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (M.A.T. 121 of 2012 with C.A.N. 3257 of 2012) specifically held that sub-rule (7)(c) of Rule 8 is procedural and directory in nature since it prescribes the mode and manner of despatching interview letters. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid judgment are set out hereunder: ...Therefore, it cannot be disputed that sub-rule (7)(a) and (b) are substantive provisions and mandatory in nature conferring right in favour of the candidates whereas sub-rule (7)(c) of Rule 8 is procedural and directory in nature since it prescribes mode and manner of despatching interview letters.... **** **** The matter can be looked at from another angle. A candidate who has not received the interview letter may lawfully raise a grievance. His grievance in such a case will be for non-compliance of Rule 8(7)(a) or (b), but definitely not for noncompliance of clause (c) since a candidate is concerned with the receipt of interview letter and not with the mode in which it was sent. From this point of view, having regard to the aim of the Rule, Clause (c) of Rule 8(7) though uses the word 'shall', is to be held as a directory and not a mandatory provision....
(3.) In the present case, there is no dispute that 95 candidates appeared at the interview held on 20th December, 2008 and Selection Committee prepared a panel. It has also been admitted by the learned Advocate of the State-respondents that no complaint was made by any eligible candidate to the effect that the interview letter was not received by him or her. So, in absence of any complaint regarding non-receipt of interview letter, it can be said that the interview letters were despatched to all the candidates and the same were also duly received by the candidates concerned.;