Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Samir Kumar Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 December, 2017
Author: Shivakant Prasad
Bench: Shivakant Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present: The Hon'ble Justice Shivakant Prasad
W.P. 28552 (W) of 2015
Samir Kumar Das
-Vs.--
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghosh
Md. Mojnu Sk.
Sk. N. Haque
For the State : Mr. Biswajit De
Heard on : 03.11.2017 & 01.12.2017
C.A.V. on : 01.12.2017
Judgment on : 15.12.2017
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
The order bearing Memo No. 1510(7) dated 31.12.2014 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda without resolving the issue of approval of appointment of the petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Petitioner case is that he approached the authority of Hardamnagar Uday Chand High School, Post Office - Hardamnagar, District - Malda, since his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Clerk of said school in respect of which selection process was started in 2004.
As the school authority did not consider candidature of the petitioner for said post of Clerk on the plea that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the petitioner moved the Hon'ble Court by filing W.P. No. 18804 (W) of 2004 in which an interim order was passed on 16.12.2004 to the extent that if the petitioner is considered eligible, he might be allowed to appear for the interview and in compliance thereof the Secretary of said High School vide his Memo No. 44/05 dated 03.08.2005 issued an interview letter to the petitioner for the post of clerk (reserved for S.C.) asking him to attend interview on 20.08.2005 at 11-00 a.m. The petitioner duly participated in the interview and on the basis of said interview, a panel was prepared by the Selection Committee enlisting the petitioner as he stood first which was accepted by the Managing Committee and subsequently said panel was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda for his approval.
The petitioner also wrote a letter on 28.10.2005 to the District Inspector of Schools requesting him to approve the said panel.
In the meantime three candidates of the said selection process namely Goutam Kumar Das, Biswanath Das and Bablu Karmakar filed three writ petitions in the Hon'ble court bearing W.P. No. 17800 (W) of 2005, W.P. No. 18295 (W) of 2005 and WI). No. 18425 (W) of 2005 respectively inter-alia challenging said selection process in question and all those three writ applications were jointly heard and disposed of by a common order on 19.09.2005 directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider objections of all the writ petitioners as well as Panchayat Nominee by giving personal hearing to the school authority and to pass a reasoned order on the said panel and further directed that if Biswanath Das is found junior to all, he should be delisted from the panel and further to communicate his decision in a sealed cover to the Hon'ble Court.
Since the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda did not approve the panel, petitioner filed another writ application being W.P. No. 20630 (W) of 2005 which was disposed of on 21.11.2005 by directing the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda to consider the prayer of the petitioner for approval of said panel.
Pursuant to said order the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda under his Memo No. 40(4)/G.A. dated 23.02.2006 passed an order inter-alia holding that unless the above referred 3 writ petitions are disposed of, issue of approval of panel cannot be finalized.
In the above situation the petitioner again moved third round of writ application in W.P. No. 5212 (W) of 2006 which was disposed of on 12.09.2006 directing the District Inspector of Schools to approve the panel and further direct the school authority to appoint the petitioner.
Petitioner was compelled to file a contempt application in the Honble Court in which Rule was issued for violation of the said order vide W.P.C.R.C. 6019 (W) of 2007. The said Rule was discharged on 14.08.2009 since by that time the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda approved the panel in which the petitioner was in first position and subsequently the petitioner joined his duty.
Petitioner states that at that juncture Bablu Karmakar i.e. the writ petitioner in W,P. No. 18425 (W) of 2005 preferred an appeal before the Division Bench against the said order which was registered as M.A.T. No. 900 of 2009 and the said appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench setting aside the order of Single Bench of Hon'ble Court and directed that all the writ applications being W.P, No. 5212 (W) of 2006; W.P. No. 17800 of 2005; W.P. No. 18295 (W) of 2005; W.P. No. 18425 (W) of 2005 and W.P. No. 18804 of 2004 be heard together and further directed the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda to take a fresh decision and to communicate the same to the Hon'ble Court in a sealed cover.
In compliance thereof all those writ applications were taken up for hearing by the Hon'ble Justice Arindam Sinha on 01.08.2014 and disposed of all those writ applications by a common order with a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda to consider and dispose of the claims made in the said three writ petitions upon giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks upon service of a copy of the order to be made upon him and to notify the petitioners in the said several writ petitions in proceeding with hearing and adjudicating their claims.
Pursuant to said order dated 01.08.2014, the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda heard the respective parties and ultimately passed his decision on 31.12.2014 inter-alia, by the following decision -
"...... according to this office record, in obedience to the order of the Division Bench dated 28.10.2009, the matter was taken up for hearing and after hearing to all parties including the Secretary, Teacher-in-Charge and Panchayat Nominee with their written submission has taken a decision on 10.12.2009. The decision was submitted in a seated cover without divulging and disclosing to anyone alongwith other papers to Mrs. Ashalata Ghosh, the then Ld. State Advocate, High Court, Calcutta for onward placement before the Hon'ble trial Judge under this office Memo No. 369 dated 05.03.2010 with receipt dated 08.04.2010. Thereafter, same decision was resubmitted second time in a sealed cover to Mrs. Ashalata Ghosh, Ld. Advocate under this office Memo No. 225 dated 23.02.2011 with receipt dated 24.02.2011.
Now it appears from the recital of the order dated 01.08.2014 passed by His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Arindam Sinha in the instant matter that neither of the parties have mentioned the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 28.10.2009 and it also appears that the decision of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda dated 10.12.2009 submitted in sealed cover in terms of order of the Hon'ble Division Bench appeared to be not dealt with by the Court before passing the order dated 01.08.2014.
In view of the above, I being the present District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda agree with the decision taken by the previous District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda because the same was taken properly accordingly to the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench.
Now it is decided herein that as the decision taken by the previous District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda had never divulged or disclosed to anyone so the said decision in a sealed cover have to be placed before the Hon'ble Trial Judge for necessary direction.
Thus the matter, in my part, is disposed of."
Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra, Sr. counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the order of the Hon'ble Court, the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda did not dispose of the issue rather he made the issue complicated. Surprisingly enough though the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda took a plea that vide office Memo No. 05.03.2010 and office Memo No. 23.02.2011, decision taken on 10.12.2009 by the then District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda were sent to the Hon'ble Court in sealed cover but he did not disclose the contents of those letters.
It is reflected from the order dated 31.12.2014 that the present District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda accepted the decision of the earlier District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda dated 10.12.2009.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt petition before the Hon'ble Court being C.P.A.N. No. 120 of 2015 which was disposed of on 27.4.2015 by observing that said disposal will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the said order in appropriate proceeding.
According to petitioner, he has been working as a Clerk of said school till date but he is not getting any salary for his work.
It is further submitted that having no other alternative petitioner has moved the instant writ application for direction to the respondents to finalize the issue of approval of service of the petitioner.
Mr. Moitra submitted that impugned has been passed in derogation of the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P. No. 5212 (W) of 2006 on 01.08.2014 and as such the same is liable to be quashed.
The point for consideration before this Court is as to whether the order passed by the District Inspector of School is in derogation of the order and direction of this Hon'ble Court passed in WP 5212(W) of 2006 on 01.8.2014 and whether the order so passed is liable to be quashed.
In this case selection process for the post of Clerk in Hardamnagar Uday Chand High School, District- Malda was started in the year 2004. Interview letter was issued to the petitioner for the post of Clerk on 03.8.2005 and pursuant thereto he attended the interview on 20.8.2005 admittedly the petitioner stood first in the panel and as such he wrote a letter to the District Inspector of School on 28.10.2005 requesting him to approve the panel. The District Inspector of School by his order opined in the following words--
"Actually in my opinion it would have been the best way to administer justice to all these 23 (twenty three) candidates (20 candidates sponsored from the Employment Exchange and 03 candidates vide Hon'ble Court's order) had it been possible to invite them de novo for the interview and the interview process could have been started ab-initio, but attempt of doing that at this stage would tantamount to surpass and/or evade the provision of law since by this time i.e. from 14th Jan. 2009 vide notification No.56-ES/S/IS-18/08 dated Kolkata 14.1.2009 the provision of West Bengal School Service Commission (Amendment)Act 2008 (West Bengal Act XXX of 2008) has been enforced vide section 2(3) (ia) of WBSS Commission (Amendment )Act 2008 and now such appointment of Clerk is required to be routed through Regional School Service Commission maintaining all usual processes as envisaged in the relevant Act read with the rules there under.
As such the school authority is ordered to send vacancy statement in the usual way maintaining reservation policy to accommodate privileged candidates in fit cases to District Inspector of Schools(SE),Maida for onward transmission to School Service Commission (Northern Region) for doing the needful as usual.
Let this my observation/decision should not be divulged and disclosed to anyone else. Let this he placed before the trial judge in a sealed cover as directed."
Mr. Moitra further submitted that the observation made by the District Inspector of School (SE), Malda in his order aforesaid has committed total wrong for the reasons that the post Clerk fell vacant in Hardam Nagora Uday Chand High School in the District of Malda and prior permission to fill up the said post was accorded by District Inspector of School, Malda on 16.03.2001. In pursuance of prior permission, the Managing Committee made requisition to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring the names of candidates for the said post and the Employment Exchange sent the names of 20 candidates for the said post of Clerk. The Selection Committee was constituted by the School Authority and the date of interview was fixed on 20.08.2005. But all together 13 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee including the petitioner. Ten candidates out of twenty candidates appeared whose names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and three other candidates in whose favour leave was granted by this Hon'ble Court and after the interview, the panel of three candidates was prepared. The writ petitioner Samir Kumar Das was placed at the first position in the panel of three candidates. The managing committee of the school accepted the panel and forwarded the same to the District Inspector of School for approval.
It is urged by Mr. Moitra that when the names of the candidates for the post of Clerk sponsored by the Employment Exchange in the year 2005, interview was held in the year 2005 and panel of three candidates was prepared in the same year following the rules which was in force for appointment of non-teaching staff (Clerk), the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda is not competent to pass any order and give opinion without any authority of law directing the school authority to send vacancy statement in the usual way maintaining reservation policy to accommodate privileged candidates in fit cases to District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda for onward transmission to School Service Commission (Northern Region) for doing the needful.
"Having heard the counsel for the parties, we find no force in either of the two contentions. Under the old rules a panel had to be prepared every year in September. Accordingly, a panel should have been prepared in the year 1976 and transfer or promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II should have been made out of that panel. In that event the petitioners in the two representation petitions who ranked higher than the respondents Nos. 3 to 15 would not have been deprived of their rights of being considered for promotion. The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub- Registrar Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not on the Statewide basis and therefore, there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules."
It is submitted that by Notification No. 4L 1st January, 2009 the Governor in exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (2) read with sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 and in supersession of all previous rule, orders, notification and direction on the subject, the Governor was pleased to make the rules regulating the selection of persons for appointment to the post of non-teaching staff. The rules West Bengal School Service Commission (selection of persons for appointment to the post of non-teaching staff) Rules 2009 came into force on 9th July, 2009, whereas petitioner was selected as non- teaching staff in the year 2005 as he was placed at the top of the panel duly accepted by the Managing Committee and forwarded to the District Inspector of School, Malda for approval in respect of the vacancy which occurred in the year 2005, prior to the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 coming to force on and from 9th July, 2009, the said Rules 2009 has no manner of application for appointment to the post of Clerk (Non-Teaching Staff). Therefore, the opinion given by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Malda after a lapse of eleven years by ordering the School Authority to send the vacancy statement before the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda for onward transmission to School Service Commission (Northern Region) for doing needful cannot be sustained.
Mr. Moitra has fortified his argument by placing reliance on a decision of Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao reported in AIR 1983 SC 852 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court made observation in paragraph 9 as under--
Thus, it is argued that vacancy which had occurred in the year 2005 and the selection procedure have been duly completed in 2005 by preparation of the panel of three candidates, such vacancy would be governed by the old rules and not by the Rules 2009 and West Bengal School Service Commission Act which came into force in the year 2009.
Yet, Mr. Moitra relied on a decision of a case of P. Mahendran and others v. State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 405 wherein it has been held thus--
"It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. If a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rule of 1987 in the instant case does not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the Rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rule seeking the change in the eligibility criteria for selection and appointment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors was not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force. The amended Rule could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment: moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter."
In rebuttal Mr. Biswajit De, learned counsel for the respondent/State has relied on a decision in case of State of Punjab and others v. Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar reported in AIR 1991 SC 2219 in paragraphs 6 and 7 wherein it has been observed by quoting the decision in Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council, (1956) AC 736 at p. 769 wherein Lord Redcliffe observed:
"An order even if not made in good faith is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders."
7. Apropos to this principle, Prof. Wade states: "the principle must be equally true even where the 'brand of invalidity' is plainly visible; for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the Court (see : Administrative Law 6th Ed. p,
352). Prof. Wade sums up these principles:
"The truth of the matter is that the Court will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the Court may refuse to quash it because of the plaintiff's lack of standing, because he does not deserve a discretionary remedy, because he has waived his rights, or for some other legal reason. In any such case the 'void' order remains effective and is in reality valid. It follows that an order may be void for one purpose and valid for another, and that it may be void against one person but valid against another."
The Hon'ble Apex Court quoting the above principle in paragraph 6 and 7 of the cited judgment held that it will be clear from these principles that party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to approach the Court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must approach the Court within the prescribed period of limitation, lf the statutory time limit expires the Court cannot give the declaration sought for.
Ratio laid in the cited decision in my humble opinion is not well nigh within the facts and circumstances of this case because the petitioner has exercised his right at the nick of time challenging the order of the District Inspector of School for its quashment in this writ petition.
Mr. De further relying on a decision of Shakur Basti Shamshan Bhumi Sudhar Samiti (Regd.) v. Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi and others reported in (2007) 13 SC 53, invites my attention to paragraph 43 wherein it has been held that a writ court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not quash an order if it gives rise to another illegal order or may quash both the orders.
Yet, Mr. De in support of his argument referred to a decision in KM. Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission and others reported in (2006) 12 SC 724 wherein all selected 17 candidates not impleaded as parties in the writ petition but only respondents 3 and 4 against whom allegations of irregularities made impleaded, purportedly in their representative capacity. It was held that all the 17 selected candidates were necessary parties/proper parties in the writ petition as the result could have affected them. Moreover, their number was not large and appellant had no difficulty in impleading them. In this context, it is submitted that other two candidates in the panel ought to have been made party in the writ petition.
In my considered view, the decisions cited above are distinguishable from the instant case because the writ petitioner was placed first in the panel. So he has the first right to be appointed against only one vacancy. If he does not opt for the post then the second candidate has right to get the appointment for the said post and if both the first and second candidates in the panel placed do not join the post, then the third candidate in the panel automatically would get the appointment against the single vacancy of Clerk post in the said School. Here in this case the petitioner has prayed for writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents their subordinates or agents to quash, cancel, set aside, withdraw, reject and rescind from the impugned Memorandum No. 1510(7) dated 31.12.2014 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda and to finalize the issue of approval of the panel as well as appointment of the petitioner to the post of Clerk of Hardamnagar Uday Chand High School, P.S.- Harishchandrapur, District- Malda and to release salary of the petitioner both current and arrear within a time bound period.
By order dated 12.9.2006 passed in W.P. 5212(W) of 2006 the Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ with the following direction--
"After having considered the merits of the case, I do not see any reason as to why to the panel in question prepared by the concerned Selection Committee after following the procedures should not be approved by the Dist. Inspector of Schools concerned. Having realized that there is nothing to oppose, the respondent concerned perhaps has chosen not to oppose this application by filing or using affidavit-in-opposition to this writ petition. In view of the above, the panel which was prepared by the Selection Committee should not be allowed to be frustrated. Thus the third respondent herein is directed to approve the panel which has already been sent to him for his approval.
After the panel is approved in terms of the order, the appointment will be made on the basis of the enlistment of candidates in the panel and since the name of the petitioner appears to be first in the panel the petitioner will be given appointment after the approval of the panel."
I have discussed in the forging paragraph that a Contempt proceeding was initiated in WPCRC 6019 (W) of 2007 by order dated 14.8.2009 the same was dropped since the rule was discharged by the following order--
"since the panel in question has been approved in terms of the order, passed earlier, the school authority was directed to make the necessary appointment on the basis thereof and once the petitioner is appointed as the first empanelled candidate, his appointment will be approved by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) concerned without any delay. The school authority will send all the necessary papers after appointing him to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) concerned and once such papers are sent, the petitioners appointment will be approved within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such papers to the District Inspector of Schools from the school authority."
An appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Single Bench in MAT 900 of 2009 by a third candidate in the panel and by order dated 28.10.2009 the appeal was decided with the following direction--
"Now by the impugned judgment and order, the approval, has been granted as there was an application for contempt. When the issues are subjudice before the court and are to be decided by the court alone as to legality and validity even after the decision is rendered by the D.I. in terms of order of Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjec, we think the order impugned is not sustainable. We accordingly set aside the order of Hon'blc trial Judge and all action taken by the D.I. in terms of the order of the Hon'ble trial Judge, is also set aside.
Since the legality and validity of the panel and approval thereof are pending adjudication for a long time and the matter is old one, we direct the D.I. to take a decision in terms of' the order of Justice Ashim Kurmr Bancrjee upon giving hearing to all parties without being influenced by earlier observations. However, such decision shall not be communicated to any of the parties as Justice Banerjee kept all these writ petitions pending for hearing, whereas Justice Pal has virtually disposed of the matter finally.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions, namely, W.P. 17800(W) of 2005, W.P 18295(W) of 2005, W.P. 18425(W) of 2005 and W.P 18804(W) of 2004 as well as the writ petition on which the impugned judgment and order was passed will stand revived and the writ petition being W.P. 5212(W) of 2006 be heard along-with all those matters.
Hopefully affidavits are complete by this time. If not done, this shall be done in the meantime. Pending filing of the affidavits, the D.I. shall take a fresh decision within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and such decision shall not be divulged and disclosed to anyone else and to be placed before the Hon'ble trial Judge in a sealed cover in terms of the order of Justice Ashim Kumar Benerjee.
We request the Hon'ble trial Judge to hear out the matter as early as possible and this should be done within three weeks from the date of receipt of the report of the D.I. in terms of this order."
Thereafter, all the writ petitions were disposed of by the writ Court with the following direction by order dated 01.8.2014--
"The appearing parties submit the questions raised in the writ petitions be referred to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Malda for the said authority to go into and dispose of the claims and counter claims of the parties. Accordingly, there will be a direction upon the said authority to consider and dispose of the claims made in the aforesaid several writ petitions upon giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks upon service of a copy of this order to be made upon him. The said authority will notify the petitioners in the said several writ petitions in proceeding with hearing and adjudicating the claims made."
The District Inspector of Schools pursuant to the said direction passed an order impugned agreeing with the decision taken by the previous District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda because the same was taken properly according to the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench. That is to say, the District Inspector of School concurred with the order passed by previous District Inspector of School (SE), Malda who had ordered the school authority to send vacancy statement in the usual way maintaining reservation policy to accommodate privileged candidates in fit cases to District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda for onward transmission to School Service Commission (Northern Region) for doing the needful. District Inspector of School was of the view that the provision of West Bengal School Service Commission (Amendment) Act, 2008 (West Bengal Act XXX of 2008) has been enforced vide Section 2(3) (ia) of WBSS Commission (Amendment) Act, 2008 and now such appointment of Clerk is required to be routed through Regional School Service Commission maintaining all usual processes as envisaged in the relevant Act read with the rules thereunder.
Having considered the pros and cons of the writ petition with the facts situation of the instant case and bearing in mind the ratio of decisions as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Y. V. Rangaiah and P. Mahendran and others (supra) and taking cue from the aforesaid decisions and giving an anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view and accordingly hold that the post of Clerk which fell vacant in the said School prior to Rules 2009 and WBSSC Act, 2008 which came to be enforced in suppression of all existing rules on and from 2009 cannot be applied for the appointment of Clerk which fell vacant in the year 2004 and for the reason that selection process were all complete in the year 2005 by preparing a panel and forwarding the same to the District Inspector of School for approval as required under the existing rule and the panel ought to have been approved as per the old rules, ergo, the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of School is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, I quash the order being Memorandum No. 1510(7) dated 31.12.2014 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda. Consequently the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda, respondent no. 3 is directed to approve the panel within three weeks from the date of communication of this order and appointment to the post of Clerk in the respondent School i.e. Hardamnagar Uday Chand High School, Post Office - Hardamnagar, District - Malda, be accorded in favour of the petitioner.
Certified website copies of this judgment and/or order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.)