SAGORIKA KHATUN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed challenging a memo being No.11/G dated 16th January, 2006 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Malda, whereby the District Inspector of Schools, while giving a decision in respect of grant of approval to the panel for the post of clerk of Mitna High School, has also cancelled the same. In brief, the petitioner's case is as follows:

(2.) A supplementary affidavit, affirmed on 17th November, 2014, has been filed in Court in order to bring on record a memo dated 1st November, 2001 to show that the post was sanctioned by the Director of School Education. The supplementary affidavit has been taken on record. While passing the impugned order the District Inspector of Schools has observed that the panel cannot be approved because the recruitment process was conducted without following the recruitment rules and that no prior permission was obtained by the school authority. Therefore, the panel which was prepared, cannot be sustained. To contradict the said stand taken by the District Inspector of Schools the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that from the supplementary affidavit it will appear that the Director of School Education sanctioned the post and since the District Inspector of Schools is placed higher to the rank of District Inspector of Schools, no further permission of the District Inspector of Schools is required to be obtained before holding the interview and preparing the panel. The learned advocate for the petitioner has cited a few decisions to argue that recruitment rules are only guidelines issued by the Department of Education and infraction of those guidelines would not tantamount to violation of the rules because these guidelines are only directory in nature and violation thereof does not entail any penal consequence and if it does not entail any penal consequence non-compliance of the said guidelines does not vitiate the recruitment process. According to him, even without prior permission being obtained from the District Inspector of Schools the panel which has been prepared can validly stand and the District Inspector of Schools should have approved the same instead of rejecting the prayer for approval. The first decision relied on by the learned advocate of the petitioner in the case of Rabindra Nath Mahata Vs.- State of West Bengal, 2005 2 CLJ and relying on paragraph 12 thereof he submits that even if a person appears before the Selection Committee without his name being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the candidate cannot be excluded for consideration merely because his name has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The second decision the learned advocate cited is in the case of Khejuri Guruprasad Balika Vidyaniketan & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors, 2003 1 CalLT 391 and relying upon paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment he tries to impress that guidelines issued by the Director of School Education cannot be considered as mandatory one. The facts and circumstances of the above reported judgment passed in the case of Sri Rabindra Nath Mahata is somehow different from the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Nothing is available from the writ petition as to whether the petitioner's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange or not at all or whether any advertisement was issued in the newspaper or not is also not appearing. It has only been stated in the writ petition that there was an advertisement in the notice board and in pursuance thereof the petitioner sat for the interview and his name appeared in the first position in the panel. So far the second cited case is concerned by the judgment it has been held that there was no wilful departure from the terms of the guidelines and the Managing Committee of the school honestly and faithfully performed their duties in substantial particulars. Therefore, a minor infraction from the guidelines, if it is technical, can be avoided.

(3.) But it is not the case of the petitioner that there was any such minor deviation from the guidelines in the present case. I, therefore, hold that these two judgments have no bearing on the present case.