Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) . Two writ petitions were moved one by Sri Arun Kiran Adak being W. P. 8492(W)/98 and the other by Shri Uttam Kumar Chakraborty being W. P. 8818(W)/98. Both of them challenged the same order passed by the District Inspector of School (SE), Hooghly on 25th March, 1998 refusing to approve the panel for appointment of an Assistant Teacher in Zoology in Muktarpur High School at Hooghly. It is not in dispute that the name of the writ petitioner Shri Uttam Chakraborty was sponsored by the District Inspector of School for an interview in respect of the appointment of an Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid school. It is also not in dispute that the name of Arum Kiran Adak was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange for permitting him to appear in the interview board for the said post. Arun Kiran Adak moved a writ application before this Court whereupon G. R. Bhattacharyya, J. by an order dated 8th August, 1997 relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Excise Superintendent v. K. B. N. Visheshwar Rao, (1996)6 SCC 216 allowed the writ petitioner to appear before the interview board for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Zoology in Muktarpur High School in the district of Hooghly. Accordingly both the aforesaid two petitioners appeared before the interview board. A panel was framed by the Selection Board and the name of Arun Kiran Adak had figured as number 3 in the said panel whereas the name of the writ petitioner Mr. Uttam Chakraborty has figured as number 2 in the said list. The first candidate in the panel is not now in the picture. A panel of three candidates were however, but to the District Inspector of School for approval by the school authorities. By the impugned order dated 25th March, 1998 the District Inspector of School (SE) Hooghly found that neither the writ petitioner viz., Arun Kiran Adak nor the writ petitioner Uttam Chakraborty would be considered to be a person entitled for appointment. According to the District Inspector of School, the candidature of Uttan Chakraborty was rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner at the time of appearing before the interview board was already a service holder. So far as Arun Kiran Adak in concerned it appears that no real ground has been given by the District Inspector of School as to why his candidature was in fact rejected by him. Both the writ petitioners, viz., Arun Kiran Adak and Uttam Chakraborty are aggrieved by this order and have moved this writ application under 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Basu for the writ petitioner Arun Kiran Adak being W. P. 8492(W)/98 and Mr. Palit for the writ petitioner Uttam Chakraborty being W. P. 8818(W)/98. I have also heard Mr. Amit Roy, appearing for the State-respondents in the matter of Uttam Kumar Chakraborty and Mr. Sk. Oli Mohammad appearing for State respondent -in the matter of Arun Kiran Adak.
(3.) Before I take up the submission of Mr. Basu on the merits it would be necessary for me to deal with the arguments of Mr. Palit who has opposed the prayer made by Arun Kiran Adak in his writ application. Mr. Basu has argued that since the candidate No. 1 in the panel was absent and was not interested to be appointed, only question would be whether the candidate No. 2 or candidate No. 3 would be appointed from the panel. It is true that if the candidature of Uttam Chakraborty is disallowed on the ground that he has been serving in a different organisation at the time the interview was taken then only there will be a one man panel. According to Mr. Basu since Sri Arun Kiran Adak was empanelled in accordance with the rules there was no impediment on the part of the authorities to appoint him from the said one man panel. In support of that contention Mr. Basu has relied on certain unreported decisions of this Court in the case of Sujata Maiti v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. being W. P. 22639(W)/97 disposed of on 7th January, 1998, (2) Amiya Kumar Bhattacharyya v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. being W. P. 7670(W)/ 86 disposed of on 4th November, 1987, (3) Sri Adwaitya Dutta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. being W. P. No. 1146(W)/96 disposed of on 26th April, 1996 and Sri Srimanta Sikdar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. being W. P. 30485(W)/99 disposed of on 9th June, 1998. Mr. Basu has also relied on a decision of this Court reported in (1995)2 C LJ 308 ; 1995 WBLR (Cal)170. Mr. Basu in this connection has also drawn my attention to the relevant procedures for appointment from which he wanted to argue that even from a one man panel appointment can be made. Mr. Palit, however, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in W. P. 8818(W)/ 98 submitted that the writ petition is not at all entitled to be considered for appointment. He submitted relied on a Special Bench decision of this Court reported in (1998)1 Cal HN 544. and also on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1999 WBLR (Cal) 252. Mr. Palit relying on these decisions of this Court submitted that since the writ petitioner Shri Arun Kiran Adak had appeared before the interview board on the basis of an order passed by this Court which had passed on the basis of a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1996)6 SCC 216 but the decision was subsequently found to be not good law by the Special Bench decision of this Court, no reliance could be placed on the said single bench decision of this Court by which the writ petitioner was permitted to appear before the interview board. I agree with Mr. Basu that the Special Bench decision of this Court would be applicable in a prospective manner. No appeal was taken against the order passed by G. R. Bhattacharyya, J. by the client of Mr. Palit. Since the matter was disposed of and no appeal was filed and both the parties had participated before the interview board without raising any objection, at this stage, I am unable to permit Mr. Palit to raise the said question. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Palit, that in view of the fact that by the order passed by G. R. Bhattacharyya, J. appearance before the Interview Board by the writ petitioner Shri Arun Kiran Adak was made and as it was not done in accordance with the procedures, candidature of that writ petitioner cannot at all be complied. However, there is another aspect of the matter..;