- (1.) In the instant writ petition, the grievance of the writ petitioner who is the headmaster of the school in that three vacancies; one being the post of clerk and other two post under the category of Group-D, though are lying vacant but the District Inspector of Schools did not accord prior permission to fill up the vacancies following the recruitment procedure issued by the Director of Education, West Bengal under Memo 1736(21) G.A. dated Calcutta 1st November, 1999.
(2.) An opposition has been filed by the State respondents being duly affirmed by one Assistant Inspector of Schools (S.E.). In the opposition, it is stated that due to financial stringency of State of West Bengal, the Chief Secretary of the West Bengal had issued circular letters dated 13th December, 2000, restraining any appointment without prior approval of Appointment Committee of Cabinet. The learned Advocate for the State respondent has referred to clause 2(1) of the circular letter, which reads thus : "2(f). No casual appointments be made, except in rare cases with prior approval of Finance Department. No reemployment would be allowed on any grounds. Except for the posts where recruitment is through Public Service Commission, no vacant post irrespective of the duration of vacancy, can be filed without prior approval of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet. Treasury would not pass the salary bill of any new employee, if along with his first salary bill of Government Order clearly stating that clearance of Finance Department has been taken for filing up vacant post is enclosed. This will not apply to promotional posts." ,
(3.) In this case, only point is to be considered whether in the said circular there is any restriction to fill up the vacancy and if so, to what extent. From the circular letter 2{f) it appears that no vacant post could be filled up without prior approval of the Appointment Committee of Cabinet. Filling up the vacancy by appointment and frnalization of the recruitment issue following the recruitment rules, are not synonymous. It is settled law by the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case Prafulla Kr. Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra & Ors., reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 181, that the word 'recruitment" connotes empanelment, enlistment, approval before appointment etc. whereas the word 'appointment' means actual posting in a post. Relevant observations from the said report reads thus : "29. At this stage, we will proceed to decide as to the meaning and effect of the words 'recruitment' and 'appointment'. The term "recruitment" connotes and clearly signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not actual appointment or posting in service. In contradistinction the word "appointment" means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office. 30. Recruitment is just an initial process. That may lead to eventual appointment in the service. But, that cannot tantamount to an appointment.";