ASOK KUMAR MALIK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, appellant herein has preferred an appeal and also filed an application in connection therewith. It appears from the records that the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Hooghly refused to approve the panel prepared by the School Authority for filling up the vacant Group-D post. The validity and legality of the aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant herein before this Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge. While dismissing the aforesaid writ petition, learned Single Judge held that the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Hooghly has rightly refused to accord approval to the panel in question. The District Inspector of Schools concerned refused to accord approval to the said panel mainly on the following grounds :-

(2.) MR . Gupta submitted that Rule 8 (7) ( c ) provides for the mode and manner of calling for interview which enables the authority to keep a record of the candidates who have received interview letters. Mr. Gupta also submitted that in providing for this requirement, the Rule uses the word 'shall ' and the use of the word 'shall ' does not always mean that the provision is mandatory. According to Mr. Gupta, whether the word 'shall ' is directory or mandatory is to be ascertained having regard to the purpose and object the provision seeks to achieve.

(3.) MR . Gupta submitted that the Sub-Rule 7 ( c ) of Rule 8 provides the mode and manner of dispatching the interview letter to the candidates and the same is only directory in nature. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the provision of Sub-Rule 7 (a) and (b) are substantive and mandatory in nature since in terms of Sub-Rule 7(a), all the employment exchange sponsored candidates are entitled to be called for interview and in terms of SubRule 7 (b), all the short-listed candidates who applied in response to the advertisement are also entitled to be called for interview. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that Sub-Rule 7(a) and (b) are substantive provisions and mandatory in nature conferring right in favour of the candidates whereas Sub-Rule 7 ( c ) of Rule 8 is procedural and directory in nature since it prescribes mode and manner of dispatching interview letters. Mr. Gupta referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. T. Rajan Vs. T. P. M. Sahir & Ors., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 498 and relied upon Paragraphs 45 and 49 which are set out hereunder :-