Ganendra Narayan Ray, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against judgment passed by the learned trial Judge in Civil Order No. 11092(W) of 1986. The aforesaid writ proceeding was initiated on the basis of the writ petition made by the respondent No. 1, Samsul Huda. In the said writ petition the panel of the teachers selected by the Board of Interview of Sadhikhans Dearth Vidyanikatan was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.) Murshidabad, namely, the appellant in the instant appeal and the writ petitioner respondent contended that such rejection of the panel sent by the said School by the District Inspector of Schools was not proper and the writ petitioner respondent No. 1 contended that his name having been placed at the top of the list of the candidates selected by the Selection Committee, the panel should have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools for appointment as a teacher in the said School. The District Inspector of Schools has given a number of reasons for not accepting the said panel and one of the reasons is that the School called for the candidates from the local Employment Exchange for the purpose of interview without waiting for consideration of the names to be forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools from among the list of physically handicapped persons and the heirs and representatives of the persons who had died in harness while serving the Schools. Under the rules, it is necessary that whenever a vacancy occurs in a School for appointment of a teaching or a non-teaching staff, the School Committee is required to request the District Inspector of Schools to send the names for appointment to the post falling vacant from amongst the persons enlisted in the panel of physically handicapped persons and the nominees of the persons dying in harness while serving different institutions. The District Inspector of Schools has commented chat the Managing Committee of the School ought to have waited for the said list to be sent by him and if a candidate from such list could have been selected, there would not have any necessity for holding an interview. But instead of doing that the Managing Committee requested he local Employment Exchange to forward the names of the candidates for interview and as such there has been a gross irregularity in the matter of selecting candidates. The District Inspector of Schools has also commented that the list of names of the candidates selected at the interview should have been sent by the Secretary of the School, and by the Special Officer in this case. But the Headmaster having forwarded the names, an irregularity has also taken place. The District Inspector has also pointed out that the Headmaster had acted improperly in intimating to the writ petitioner, Sri Samsul Huda that in the selection list his name topped the list. He has also pointed out that although the selection was required to be made in respect of the teacher in the language group, in the list forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools it was stated that interview had taken place in respect of a teacher in the speciality of physics.
(2.) The learned trial Judge has disposed of the writ petition by directing the District Inspector of Schools to reconsider the question of approval of the panel in the light of the observations made in his judgment.
(3.) Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the District Inspector of Schools has submitted that the reasons given by the District Inspector of School in not approving the selection list should not have been discarded and there was no occasion for sending the matter back to him for reconsideration. He has contended that in the instant case selection was made by a selection committee consisting of only two persons, namely, the Headmaster of the School and an outside expert although the Selection Committee consists of five members, as referred to in Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules. He has submitted that if on that score the District Inspector of Schools was not inclined to accept the said panel, there was no occasion to interfere by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Ghosh has also contended that the list of physically handicapped persons and the heirs and representatives of the persons employed in the School dying in harness was to be sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the School concerned on a request from the School authority. But the letter containing such request from the School was actually received in the Berhampore Post Office on 29th May, and the Office of the District Inspector had received the same only on 31st May. But prior to that the Managing Committee without waiting for such list had requested the local Employment Exchange to forward the names for holding the interview and on the basis of the names forwarded by the Employment Exchange, the interview had be+n held and as such, the interview must be held to be illegal and irregular and the District Inspector of Schools was quite justified in not according approval to such list. He has therefore submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools should be upheld. Otherwise, the very purpose of sending a list of physically handicapped persons and the heirs and representatives of the persons dying in harness in different institutions, will be frustrated.;