ABANI MAHATO Vs. KANCHAN KR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Hearing of the appeal has been taken up despite the fact that in one of the appeals Paper Book has not been filed. It appears that the petitioner and the first respondent in each case filed the writ application before this court with a prayer that the respondents be directed to allow them to appear at the interview in terms of the decision, reported in 1996 Vol. VI SCC 166. The learned trial Judge, admittedly, by reason of the impugned judgment has directed that a panel be prepared after taking a fresh interview, subject to the sponsoring of the names of the candidates by Employment Exchange. As different orders were being passed by different Benches one matter was referred to a Special Bench. The said matter related to the cases of the Secondary teachers. Other matters relating to primary teachers a came up before this court, the first case before a Special Bench and other cases before a Division Bench. The Special Bench in C.O. W.P. 1934 of 1997 has clearly held-

(2.) THE Division Bench also in the case of Primary School Teachers categorically held that where recruitments are to be made in terms of the statutory rules, a person cannot maintain a writ application directing the respondents to allow him to appear at the interview. As the names of the appellant as also the first respondent in each of these appeals were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, a panel consisting the names of the appellants must be held not to have been made in accordance with law. Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as also Mr. Bag, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, made an attempt to suggest that the said decisions are prospective in nature. We do not agree with the said contention. It has clearly been held in the said decisions that all appointments made in violation of the statutory rules are mullities. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the aforementioned decision of the Special Bench we have no other option but to hold that the appellant as also the first respondent in the appeals had no right to appear at the interview. It is stated that even the name of the third empanelled candidate has also not been sponsored. It appears that the appellant has filed another writ application. In Writ Petition No. 27016W/97 it was alleged: the applicant states that Sri Rabindra Nath Bag, learned advocate for the Headmaster and Secretary of the said School had served a copy of an application for recalling and/or violation and/or modification and/or review of the aforesaid order dated 3.10.97, upon the learned Advocate of the applicant on 3.12.97 wherefrom your petitioner came to know that Sri Kanchan Mr. Sinha had filed a writ petition and obtained an order on 1st December for getting the panel, under reference, quashed. In view of the Special Bench decision, question of sending the panel to the District Inspector of School does not arise. We, however, in modification of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, shall direct the Selection Committee to prepare a fresh panel from amongst the candidates whose names had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange if such candidates are found to have sufficient merit for being appointed as the Assistant Teacher in the School. However, if such panel cannot be formed in terms of the recruitment Rules, the Managing Committee of the School shall notify the vacancy before the Employment Exchange, who in turn shall sponsor the names of the eligible candidates in accordance with law pursuant to the prior permission granted by the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education. THEse appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions. R. K. Mitra, J.-I agree. Appeal disposed of of with directions