Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. However, the fact situation of this case appears to be different. Rule 28 of the Management Rules stands substituted. A substitution may amount to an amendment but the normal rule of Interpretation of substitution Is that It will have effect as If the same was existing from the beginning. In the instant case, the selection process had not been completed. Had the selection process been completed, the matter might have been different keeping In view the provision of section 8 of the said Act read with the procedure for selection framed by the Governor. Furthermore, both sections 7 and 9 of the said Act contain non-obstante clauses which are of wide amplitude. Keeping In view the provisions of the said Act vls-a-vls the direction Issued by the Director of School Education, there cannot be any doubt that In case of conflict the former will prevail.

21. Each Act has to be construed keeping In view the purpose of the Act. Furthermore, a rule when valldly framed may become part of an Act but the same cannot be said to be true with regard to a direction made by a subordinate authority In exercise of Its power conferred upon It under a rule. Such a direction being subject to any direction made by the State has been held to be directory in nature. See Debasis Dutta v. State of West Bengal reported in 1998(2) CLJ 1.

22. In Basudeb Bag v. Bhaskar Chandra Kar & Ors. reported. 1996(1) CLJ 230, a Division Bench of this court of which one of us (S.B. Sinha, J.) was a parry, was considering a similar contention but on different factual matrix. In that case vacancies arose much prior to 8.3.1981. Prior permission was granted on 14.5.81 and Interview was held on 22.5.81. In the meanwhile the Director of School Education in supersession of its earliest guidelines issued another guideline containing a different procedure. It was in that situation held that the selection process should be complete in terms of the old Rules.

25. Although the School Service Commission Act came Into force with effect from 17.10.97, the procedure for selection of schools having been made on 8.1.98, it became effective only with effect from that date. If prior to 8.1.98 the selection process had been completed the matter would have been different. But in the Instant case the selection process was not complete by the said date and by an order dated 29.9.97, a learned single Judge of this court directed holding of another Interview. The very fact that another interview was directed to be held clearly goes to, show that the selection process was not complete as admittedly no panel had been prepared and, thus, the question of approval thereof by the District Inspector of Schools did not arise.