MANJUR RAHMAN MONDAL Vs. SIBNATH GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties both the application for stay as also the main appeal were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) The admitted fact of the matter is as; follows:

(3.) Mr. Yasin Ali, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned Counsel submits that the Rules framed by the Director of Schools Education being statutory in nature, the writ Petitioner -Respondent No. 1 could not have been appointed as an assistant teacher. The learned Counsel contends that the Employment Exchange Officer is bound by the terms of the said Rules and unless in the request sent to him the school authorities it was clearly stated asking him to sponsor the name of such candidates who had also crossed the age bar, the said authorities could not have sponsored the name of the writ Petitioner at all. It was also urged that in any event, the said authority having cancelled the order sponsoring the name of the writ Petitioner, his candidature could not have been considered by the Selection Committee nor any such direction could have been issued by this Court and consequently, the purported approval granted to the appointment of the writ Petitioner upon relaxation of his age, must be held to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently, the Appellant should be directed to be appointed as assistant teacher.