AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
214 paragraphs · 12,698 wordsMohitosh Majumdar, J.—The writ application is directed against the appointment and approval of Smt. Gouri Goswami, (Respondent No. 3 for short) to the post of Head Mistress of Nasrapara Hemnalini Girls High School, (for brevity the said school hereafter). The broad facts of the case are placed hereunder:
The petitioner, an M.A., B.T. and P.G., B.T. of the University of Calcutta had been serving the said school as Assistant Headmistress since the year 1960, i.e., for a period over 20 years at the relevant time. Sequal to the retirement of the Headmistress of the said school, the petitioner was appointed as the officiating Headmistress of the said school with effect from November 24, 1981 and her appointment as officiating Headmistress was duly approved by the District Inspector of School (S.E.), Nadia by and under Memo. No. 2053/AC dated June 24, 1982 with effect from the date of her affiliation. Permanent vacancy to the post of Headmistress of the said school was advertised by Shri A.K. Mondal, (the then Administrator for short) in the Amrita Bazar Patrika of May, 1982 late Town Edition, Calcutta, inviting applications from duly qualified candidates with 15 days. Petitioner applied for the post of Headmistress, that 41 candidates applied for the post of Headmistress in response to the said advertisement, that 10 candidates were first selected for the interview. The then Administrator of the said school, constituted a Selection Committee by an order dated June 30, 1982 consisting of 3 members as follows:
(1) Administrator,
(2) A Representative of Teachers Council,
(3) Principal, Santipur College (External Expert).
Pursuant to a letter dated June 13, 1982 issued by the then Administrator of the said school, petitioner appeared before the said Selection Committee, in the office of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Nadia at Krishnanagar on July 7, 1982 for an interview for filling up the said vacancy in the post of Headmistress of the said school. The date of interview thus, fixed on July 7, 1982 was postponed and fresh letter was sent to the petitioner on July 26, 1982. 18 candidates including the petitioner were called for an interview on August 3, 1982. The Selection Committee held the interview of the candidates on August 3, 1982 at Krishnanagar in the office of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia and interviewed the candidates including the petitioner for the post of Headmistress. The Selection Committee selected Respondent No. 3 then serving as Sub-Inspectors of Schools, Sadarl Circle, Nadia in the office of the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Nadia for the aforesaid post. It is the claim of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 3 did not possess the minimum requisite qualifications for the said post of Headmistress of the said school. Evaluation sheet showing allotment of marks by the Selection Committee in terms of the administrative directions, in particular, paragraph 6(a) and (b) thereof issued by the Director of Secondary Education, West Bengal was not made known to the petitioner and the allotted marks were given arbitrarily in favour of respondent no. 3. The then Administrator of the said school appointed respondent no. 3 to the post of Headmistress of the said school and issued an appointment letter date August 5, 1982 to the said respondent no.3 and sent proposal to the respondent no. 1 for approval of appointment of Headmistress in gross violation of the'' required norms to be followed in the matter of appointment to the post of Headmistress. No records of the proceedings of the Selection Committee are available in the school records, that the aforesaid decisions were taken by the then Administrator in the secrecy of office and all the connected records were in his custody at Krishnanagar. The petitioner submitted a representation dated August 10, 1982 to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia to the following effect: The Selection Committee held the interview of the candidates for selection to the post of Headmistress on August 3, 1982 at his office Chamber. The said Committee consists of three members namely, (1) The then Administrator of the School, (2) Shri Anjali Chandra, Teacher''s Representative, Assistant Teacher of the school and (3) Sri Chunilal Deb Kritania, Principal of Santipur College, as an external expert. The petitioner and respondent no. 3 secured the equal marks, but in the last item, the said expert put three marks more than the petitioner and requested the other members to put the same marks in favour of respondent no. 3, but the teacher''s representative did not agree and put zero, as the candidate was unable to produce any documents or certificates in support of her candidature. Sri Chunilal Dev Kritonia and the husband of respondent no. 3 at the material time were serving in the said Santipur College as the Principal and Professor respectively. The said Principal as alleged was influenced by the husband of respondent no. 3 for securing service of his wife in the said school. The writ application was presented before this Court on September 7, 1982 when the following order passed :
In Re : Smt. Monorama Sanyal (Maitra), Petitioner
Vs.
District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia &. Others Respondents.
Mr. Jamini Kumar Banerjee
Mr. Biswanath Chakrabarty.......Petitioner.
Let this application appear three weeks hence at the top of the list. Petitioner is directed to serve copies of the application on all respondents and file affidavit of service. There will be an interim order to this extent that if any approval is accorded that will abide by the decision in this application. During this period of three weeks no payment shall be made to the respondent no. 3, Smt. Gouri Goswami.
Ld. Advocate for the petitioner may take a plain copy of this order, as prayed for.
The matter was taken up for hearing on October 13, 1982 when his Court again passed another order which reads thus:
After hearing Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3, Smt. Gouri Goswami who has been appointed as Headmistress of Nasrapara Hemnalini Girls'' High School, Ranaghat and is actually working there in such capacity and also Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner the interim order made by this Court on 7/9/82 is modified to this extent that the authorities concerned will take steps to pay respondent no. 3, Smt. Gouri Goswami, during the period she has been working as Headmistress of the school at the rate she is entitled to under the extant Rules on condition that of the application succeeds and subject to the order of this Court, the authorities will be at liberty to realize the sums paid to her, if legally recoverable, from whatever sums payable to her. L/A for respondent no. 3 may take a plain copy of the order, as prayed for.
The Court passed further order dated July 4, 1988 which reads thus:
Mr. S. Ghosh, Director of School Education, was directed earlier to appear before this Court by verbal instruction to Mr. P.K. Basu. He is present in Court. The Court records it appreciation for the time by intervention in the matter by Mr. Ghosh by brinding Mr. A.K. Mondal who was Administrator of Nasrapara Hemnilini Girls'' School (for short the said school hereafter). Query has been put to Mr. Ghosh as to whether the will be in a position to file a report in this matter within ten days from date. Mr. Ghosh has expressed his willingness to file a report within a period of fortnight from date. Mr. Ghosh is directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within the aforesaid time. It is also stated by Mr. Ghosh that he will obtain a report from Mr. A.K. Mondal, the then Administrator of the said school on the following points-
(i) Why the original papers were not available with the file and/or records;
(ii) Why the original broadsheet showing marks allotted to the candidates are not available in the records;
(ii) Why the candidates having better qualifications with experience to the exclusion of Gouri Goswami and the writ petitioner were overlooked;
(iv) Why did Mr. Mondal participate in the Selection Proceedings where Srimati Gouri Goswami subordinate to Mr. Mondal appeared as a candidate;
(v) Why did Mr. Mondal allow Srimati Gouri Goswami before the acceptance of her resignation to assume charge of the Headmistress of the said school in Krishnanagar instead of the said school at Ranaghat:
(vi) Why only the attested papers duly counter-signed by Mr. Mondal and other subordinate were available on records;
(vii) Why marks in favour of Srimati Goswami and the writ petitioner were allotted in clear violation of this provisions of the Government Circular;
(viii) Why before the acceptance of the letter of the resignation of Srimati Gouri Goswami, he was allowed to take charge of the said school by Sri A.K. Mondal without following the procedures;
The said report of Sri Mondal must be placed before Mr. Ghosh within a week from date and Mr. Mondal shall also file an affidavit along with the said report before this Court. The Court once again records its appreciation for the co-operation rendered by Mr. Ghosh in the matter which involved a serious question of administrative lapse that has otherwise eroded the vitality of the administration of the office of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia. Let a plain copy of this order duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to Mr. Ghosh through Mr. Suprakash Banerjee the learned Advocate.
The matter was listed for hearing on June 6, 1988 when the Court directed District Inspector of Schools, Nadia or Of Officer-in-Charge to appear personally at 10-30 a.m. along with all relevant papers relating to the selection proceedings. On June 7, 1968 District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia was not present nor any officer submitted any paper regarding the selection proceedings. Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools was directed to show cause as to the legality of the case and was further directed to appear before the Court on June 10, 1988. The matter was again taken up for hearing on June 17, 1988, when Mr. P.K. Basu stated before the Court that only some of the papers were handed over to him particularly, the records relating to the selection proceedings were not made over to him. Only three/four pages as regards the holding of the selection proceedings with the file were made over to him. The District Inspector of Schools was directed to show cause why a Rule for Contempt should not be issued for not securing the compliance of the order passed on June 6, 1988 and June 7, 1988. On June 22, 1988 the matter was taken up for hearing when Mr. P.K. Basu submitted that the present District Inspector of Schools intends to file a fresh affidavit stating the necessary facts. Such affidavit directed to be filed before 4p.m. on the same day.
Mr. Biswanath Chakrabarty holding the post of District Inspector of Schools affirmed the affidavit on June 22, 1988. It is stated therein that the then District Inspector of Schools considered the question of the said matter on the basis of the related papers along with the letter of Sri A.K. Mondal, the then Administrator of the school. The District Inspector of School further stated in the affidavit that in view of the fact the original affidavit relating to selection proceedings were available, he caused a letter to be written to the present Headmistress of the concerned school regarding her to send papers relating to selection proceedings in the custody of the school. The respondent no. 3 in reply informed the District Inspector of Schools that the entire records were taken by the petitioner. So far as the calculation sheet dated June 9, 1988 the District Inspector of Schools also stated that he prepared the said sheet for the purpose of her understanding as to evaluation of the relative merits of the candidates concerned and for no other purpose. The District Inspector of Schools further that he would not have looked into the attested papers relating to selection proceedings had he been the approving authority of the panel question at the relevant date. He would have insisted upon production of ail the original papers including the letters of interview issued to the concerned candidates and manner of service there for consideration of the approval of the panel. It is appropriate at this stage to refer to the comparative statement of the panel question so far the petitioner and respondent no. 3 submitted before this Court on June 9, 1988. The said comparative statement is quoted below:-
Smt. Gouri Goswami
H. S. - III
Degree
-10
(Spl. Hons.)
-13
Age on the date of
Post Graduate
interview (3/8/82) 37 Yrs. 6 months
II (above 50%)
-12
16 days
B.T./B.Ed. - I
(above 60%)
-15
Experience 8 Yrs.
6 months
-8
Extra-carricular
-3
Viva Voce
-10
Sr. Monorama Sanyal
Date of birth (29/6/29)
S. F. - III
- 5
Age on the date of Post Graduate - II
-10
interview
(3/8/82) - 53 Yrs. 4 months 4 days
below 50%
B. E. / B. Ed. II
-10
40
Experience
(more than 10 Yrs.)
10
Extra-curricular
- 5
Viva Voca
-13
-68
Sri Usharanjan Debnath, the then. District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia sworn and affirmed an affidavit on September 27, 1985. The stand of the District Inspector of Schools in the said affidavit that the writ petitioner did not object to the inclusion of the name of the Principal, Santipur College in the Selection Committee as an External Expert, that the interview was taken in the office of the respondent no. 1 as the petitioner who at the material times had been functioning as officiating Headmistress of the said school was one of the candidates for the post of Headmistress of the said school, that the Selection Committee while assessing the qualification of the candidates including the petitioner strictly followed up the directions issued by the respondent no. 6 under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-rule (1) and Clause (i) of Sub-rule(4) of Rule 28 of the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided J un-aided) and on a careful assessment selected respondent no. 3 for one post of Headmistress of the said School.
Respondent no. 3 had the requisite qualifications and experience for the said post, that the marking had not been done arbitrarily and the approval thereof was done in compliance with the relevant guidelines and Rules; there was no violation of the norms or standards laid down in regard to the recruitment to the said post of the Headmistress in any manner whatsoever, that the records of the proceedings of the Selection Committee could not be kept with the petitioner as she was a candidate for the post and as such, an interested person, that the petitioner herself wrote to the respondent no. 4 for extension of the terms of respondent no. 2 as the then Administrator of the said School, the petitioner did not raise any objection to the constitution of the Selection Committee and/or any legality said to have crept in the proceedings, that the selection was made in accordance with law and the power of selection was vested with the said Selection Committee. Accordingly, it was not proper for her to raise such objection before the Court about the incompetence of the then administrator only after she came to know that she was not selected for the post. It is also claimed that the approval of the appointment of the respondent no. 3 was made after being satisfied about proper and lawful assessment of the qualification of the candidates by the Selection Committee, that the interview was taken in the office of the respondent no. 1 because the petitioner was one of the candidates for the post and not for other reasons that the proceedings would show that marking was allotted to each candidate strictly according to the guidelines and there was no illegality in allotment of marking as raised by the petitioner nor there was any discrimination.
Paragraph 6 of the said affidavit as pointed out by Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra is based on information of the deponent of the said Affidavit derived from the records of the case which the deponent verily believed to be true.
Respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit sworn and affirmed on March 5, 1985. It is claimed by the respondent no. 3 that she passed the Higher Secondary Examination in the year, 1962 under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Thereafter, she passed the B.A. Examination in the year, 1965 and there after, obtained Special Honours in Bengali in the year, 1967. In the year, 1968, she obtained B.T. Diploma and was placed in the first class and in the year, 1969, she passed M.A. Examination in Bengali securing 51% marks. She worked as the Assistant Teacher, Nasrapara Hemnalini Girls High School, Ranaghat. The respondent no. 3 joined as Sub Inspector of School (S.E.), and continued to hold the said post till August 5, 1982, that the respondent no. 3 worked under the District Inspector of School (S.E.), Nadia.
As stated above, during the course of hearing of this matter, the District Inspector of School, including the then Administrator of the said school, filed affidavits showing complete change in the stand re voltefau and affidavits filed by Usharanjan Debnath and Biswanath Chakrabarty suffer from infection of mutual inconsistency and self-contradictions. How the Court could appreciate the stand of the respondents when the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents established mutual inconsistency and self-contradictions, in respect of the basic and fundamental aspects of the matter. It is quite apt for this Court to refer to the subsequent stand taken by the respondents for the purpose of coming to the central point of the entire matter. Sri Biswanath Chakrabarty, the present District Inspector of School, affirmed an affidavit on June 22, 1988 in compliance with the direction parsed by this Court on June 6, 1988 read with subsequent order dated June 10, 1988. Sri Chakrabarty, inter alia Stated that on scrutiny of the records as available in his office, it is found that the original papers relating to selection proceedings and preparation of panel by the Selection Committee for appointment of Headmistress Nasrapara Hemnalini Girls High School, Ranaghat, Nadia, do not appear to have been sent to the District inspector of School along with the letter of A.K. Mondal, the then Administrator of the said school.
It also appears from the affidavit of Sri Chakrabarty the then District Inspector of School, considered the question of the approval of the panel on the basis of the attested copy forwarded to her along with the said letter of the Administrator, that on the basis of the signature of the District Inspector of School (S.E.), Nadia, appearing on the attested copy of the panel in question, the averments in paragraph 3 was made by Sri Chakraborty. Sri Chakraborty is not certain whether the School Authority produced the original papers relating to the Selection Proceedings directly before the District Inspector of School at the time of consideration of the panel, that in view of the fact that the original papers relating to the Selection Proceeding were not available. Sri Chakrabarty caused letter to be written to the present administrator of the said school requesting her to send him one paper relating to the Selection Proceedings, but it was lying in the custody of the said school. The respondent no. 3 informed Sri Chakrabarty that the entire records were taken by the writ petitioner, the then teacher-in-charge of the said school, then the calculation sheet dated June 9, 1938 prepared by Sri Chakraborty was for the purpose of the understanding as to evaluation of the relative merits of the candidates concerned and for no other purpose, that it is also claimed by Sri Chakrabarty that he could only say that he would not have looked to the attested papers relating to Selection Proceedings had he been the approving authority of the panel in question at the relevant date and he would have surely insisted upon the production of all the original papers including interview letters issued to the concerned candidate and the manner of service thereon for consideration of the approval of the panel in question.
Sri Chakrabarty stated in the said affidavit affirmed on June 23, 1988, that the statements made in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit to the effect that the panel including the assessment sheet required by the Selection Committee did not appear to have been sent to the District Inspector of School along with the letter of Sri A.K. Mondal, the then Administrator of the said school and the question of the approval of the panel was considered by the District Inspector of School on the basis of the attested copies sent to her along with the letters of Administrator. In view of the fact that the original signature of the then District Inspector of School in the approval of the panel was found on the said attested copy and the statements made by him was bona fide. The said Chakraborty further stated that he only placed information which he ascertained from the respondent no. 3 in her reply dated June 20, 1988 to his letter dated June 18, 1988.
Sri Biswanath Chakraborty again affirmed supplementary affidavit dated August 9, 1988. Mr. A.K. Mondal the Administrator of the said school also affirmed an affidavit on July 12, 1988.
Pursuant to the direction passed by the Court on July 4, 1988, the then Director of Schools submitted a report on July 12, 1988. The relevant portion of the report is quoted below:
As directed by the Hon''ble High Court, a report has already been obtained from Sri A.K. Mondal, Senior Technical Assistant attached to the office of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Calcutta who was at the material time posted in analogous post in Nadia. Sri Mondal has also sworn an affidavit explaining the 8(eight) points on which the Hon''ble Court had kindly asked for explanation.
The fact of the case is that Sm. Gouri Goswami was one of the candidates for filling in the post of Headmistress, Nasrapara Hemnalini Girls'' School, Ranaghat, Nadia, for which selection by interview was held on 3/8/82. Amongst the other candidates for the same post was Sm. Monorama Sanyal the petitioner who is also a serving teacher in the same school. A Selection Committee was formed in accordance with the prevalent circular at that time with the Principal, Santipur College, Nadia, as expert, a senior teacher of the same school and the administrator, Sri A.K. Mondal. In the Circular prevalent at that time, the Secretary of the Managing Committee was to be a member of the Selection Committee and the Administrator being the one-man Managing Committee became a part of the Selection Committee.
The major allegations raised in connection with selection and appointment of Sm. Gouri Goswami as Headmistress of the school are:
(1) that she was allowed more marks than she was eligible for her academic qualifications;
(2) that she was interviewed by a Board in which the Administrator was present and the Administrator was an officer of the same Directorate posted in the same district;
(3) that she had joined the post even before she was released from her former service as a Sub-Inspector of Schools in Nadia;
(4) that no paper regarding selection, preparation of panel, approval of panel and appointment could be produced before the Hon''ble High Court in original;
(5) that some other candidates besides Sm. Goswami and Sm. Sanyal, had better academic qualifications but were given lesser marks than they were entitled to
I am taking allegation No. (1) and (5) together I find that Sm. Goswami was really given more marks than she was entitled to. But that did not change inter-se position between her and Sm. Sanyal as far as academic qualifications are concerned. But this is a serious irregularity particularly when there were other candidates whose positions in this regard could have changed.
Regarding allegation No. 2, this point is not material in the sense that Sri A.K. Mondal was attached to the office of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Nadia. Moreover, a senior Technical Assistant is not officially superior to a Sub-Inspector of Schools. But for the sake of decency, Sri Mondal might have opted out of this Selection Committee,
Regarding allegation No. 3, I find from records that the panel from which Sm. Goswami was appointed was approved by the District Inspector of Schools concerned on 8/2/82 and the appointment letter was issued on the very same day by Sri Mondal. Smt. Goswami joined on the next day, i.e., 6/8/82 while her resignation from her former post was accepted after about one year, i.e., 6/5/83. This is a serious irregularity and the Administrator should not have allowed her to join had he known that Smt. Goswami was in State Government Service. Sri Mondal in his affidavit has not explained this point clearly. Moreover, I find from records that the term of Sri Mondal as Administrator presumably expired around 31/7/82 and he had ample scope to verify these facts. The irregularity would have multiplied if the District Inspector of Schools had released salary for Sm. Goswami''s salary was released only in compliance with the orders of the Hon''ble High Court.
Regarding allegation No. 4, I am not clear in fixing who is responsible. In the affidavit sworn handed over all the original records to the then District Inspector of Schools, (S.E.), Nadia, Smt. T. Dutta. This must have happened in August, 1983. On the other hand from affidavit sworn in by Sri Biswanath Chakraborty, the present District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Nadia, I find that he had not been custody or seen the original records. I can quite understand that while proposing approval for a panel the school authorities usually send the duplicate copies duly attested by the school management but the original copy should always be maintained in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. Sri Chakrabarty had sworn his affidavit on 22/6/88 and therefore, the priginal papers according to these affidavits, must have been displaced within the period between August 1982 and June 1988. Moreover, this being a controversial appointment, presumption can be made both ways, either of deliberate suppression of facts or of normal negligence. In any event, this a sad commentary regarding maintenance of records in the office of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Nadia, and prima facie Sm. T. Dutta, the then District Inspector of School (S.E.), should explain.
My submission before the Hon''ble High Court will, therefore, be that such the appointment of Sm. Goswami has not yet been approved by the District Inspector of Schools concerned, the whole panel from which Sm. Goswami was appointed may be set aside ab-initio. The present school-management may be advised to prepare a fresh panel through normal recruitment procedure for the post of Headmistress of a aided school and naturally there will be no bar against either Sm. Goswami or Sm. Sanyal to apply afresh in the proposed selection process. Meqnwhile the school management may run the school by a teacher-in-Charge, normally the senior most teacher or the Assistant Headmistress. There may be a direction from the Hon''ble High Court on the school management to complete the proposed selection process within one month, if His Lordship so pleases.
I have another submission before the Hon''ble High Court not strictly in accordance with the Rules. Since Sm. Goswami has resigned from her former service and her resignation was accepted and she is in the service of this school for the last six years or so, in case she is not selected as Headmistress in the proposed selection process, Hon''ble High Court may kindly consider issue of a direction on me to absorb her as an Assistant teacher in the same school by allowing a fresh post personal to her.
I lay my submission before the Hon''ble High Court and shall comely with any direction that Hon''ble High Court may be pleaders to issue.
Respondent no. 3 filed affidavit and supplementary affidavit denying all the allegations made in the writ application. It is also asserted that she assumed the charge of the said school as Headmistress on August 6, 1982.
The petitioner affirmed the affidavit on June 23, 1988. The petitioner pin-pointed the contradictions crept in the affidavits filed by Sri Biswanath Chakraborty on June 22, 1988 are full of mutual inconsistency and self-contradictions. The original evaluation sheet prepared by the Selection Committee do not appear to have been sent to the then District Inspector of Schools.
The petitioners further pointed out other contradictions which would show that the then District Inspector of Schools never cared look into the records of the case, nor did he consider the basis and fundamental aspects of the matter.
It is worthwhile to note that on August 16, 1988 respondent no. 3 affirmed affidavit. Respondent no. 2, inter alia, stated as follows:
That respondent no. 3 at the time of selection for the post of Headmistress of the said school was working as the Sub-Inspector of Schools, under the Education Department, Government of West Bengal. After the selection she tendered her resignation to the post of Sub-Inspector of Schools on May 6, 1982 and the said resignation was accepted on December 15, 1988 with effect from May 6, 1983. Respondent no. 3 was on leave without pay from August 6, 1982 to May 2, 1983 continuously. On August 6, 1982 the respondent no. 3 joined the post of Headmistress of the said school.
Mr. Kashi Kanta Maitra, the learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Jamini Kumar Banerjee appearing in support of the writ petitioner claimed and contended that the selection proceeding was vitiated by reason of the failure of the Selection Committee to carry out the duty imposed upon them by law and for the purpose for which it was not intended, that the said failure did arise from action which did not follow procedure laid down by the law and by the Government. The said procedures thus laid down by Memorandum dated August 1, 1981 and August 24, 1981 are to prevent from making arbitrary and unreasonable decisions by this application of power. After taking inspection of papers, the learned Counsel led his frontal attack on the procedures adopted by the Selection Committee in the matter of appointment of respondent no. 3. It is further claimed that the failure of respondents to produce the records of the case demonstrates that there was no system of maintenance of records in the office of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia. Furthermore, the District Inspector of Schools once having asserted records pertaining to the proceedings of the Selection Committee could not be kept with the petitioner as an interested person could not be permitted to take the plea that the original records were not available in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. The different versions, according to Mr. Moitra, by the District Inspector of. Schools present a shabby state of affairs which is destructive of the good administration. Mr. Moitra further pointed out that the selection took place on August 3, 1982. Sri A.K. Mondal signed the Minutes of the Proceedings on August 4, 1982 forwarded all the required particulars along with the approval forms for necessary approval of the Headmistress of the said school. It is also stated in the said letter that the school is suffering badly for want of permanent Headmistress, early steps be taken in this regard. On August 4, 1982 the Administrator sent a panel of the Selection Committee on the same day, the Administrator accepted the panel. It also appears that the panel was sent to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia on August 4, 1982, the particular requirements in connection with the approval form (the said particulars for short) Government duly filled in was signed by the said A.K. Mondal on August 9, 1982 whereas the appointment was made by the Administrator on August 6, 1982.
It is also assailed that the then Administrator sent all the attested papers for necessary approval, that the said particulars in connection with the approval of appointment of Headmistress were sent to District Inspector of Schools, Nadia by the then Administrator did not send the aforesaid papers twice. Such claim of the then Administrator, according to Mr. Moitra, is wholly without any foundation. The then Administrator never dealt with the most important and significant aspect of the matter as to how and why he issued letter of appointment to respondent no. 3 before the acceptance of her resignation letter. The acceptance of letter of appointment was issued before the approval nor did he answer to enquiry no. 3 which required the then Administrator to state why before the acceptance of resignation, she was allowed to the charges of the said school by him without following the procedures. The answer of the then Administrator to the queries-are made self-contradictory and mutually inconsistent for the following reasons:-
The submission of papers before the District Inspector of Schools was made on August 4, 1982. The letter of appointment was issued on August 5, 1982, the assertion that the particulars in connection with the approval were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on August 9, 1983. The plea that was now taken by the then Administrator. The letter of appointment could not be issued to respondent no. 3 on August 5. 1982, nor she ought to have been allowed to assume the charge of the Headmistress of the said school. The answer of the Administrator that he never allowed the respondent no. 3 to assume charge as the Headmistress of the school stands demolished by the fact that the Administration sent the particular requirements in connection with the approval of appointment of teachers on August 9, 1982. From the records, it would appear that the Administrator signed the papers on August 9, 1982 and operated the Bank account till August 10, 1982. Mr. Moitra relying on the said documents claimed that the plea of the then Administrator that he never allowed respondent no. 3 to assume charge of Headmistress is baseless. The then Administrator issued the letter of appointment on August 5, 1982. Mr. Moitra referred the said letter of appointee. The said order dated August 5, 1982 is quoted below:
Sm. Gouri Goswami, M.A.B.T. W/O Dr. Prasun Mukherjee is appointed Headmistress, Nasrapara Hemnalini Girls'' School, Ranaghat in the scale of pay of Rs. 660-40-1100-50-1600/- plus usual allowances as admissible under grant-in-aid rules.
She is requested to join the appointment immediately. The appointment is subject to approval by the Education Directorate, West Bengal.
After referring the said document i.e. order dated August 5, 1982, Mr. Moitra pointed out that the then Administrator directed the respondent no. 3 to join immediately. The said order further records the appointment is subject to the approval by the Education Directorate, West Bengal. After relying on the said documents, Mr. Moitra urged that the letter of appointment could not be issued by the then Administrator before the approval by the Education Directorate. The said order, according to Mr. Maitra, is illegal and without jurisdiction. Mr. Moitra further advanced his submissions that the plan of the then Administrator stands negatived by the document as is mentioned above. The particular in respect of respondent no. 3 suffered from interpolation appearing in the Column "previous teaching experience". Initially, the words "seven years" were written. Thereafter, the word "seven" was interpolated by rendering it eight years and "eight" was also written in words. The previous experience of teaching of respondent no. 3, according to Mr. Moitra, was seven years and some months and not eight years as claimed and hence she was not entitled to get eight marks. Thereafter, Mr. Moitra seriously assailed attested copy of the statement of marks obtained by the candidates. Respondent no. 3 was accorded ten marks under the head "Higher Secondary Examination". Respondent no. 3 passed the Higher Secondary Examination in compartmental but the marks thus allotted to her for the High Secondary Examination was based on the footing that she passed Higher Secondary Examination in third division. The aforesaid marks thus allotted to respondent No. 3 was founded on incorrect date. Respondent no. 3 was not entitled to. eight marks. The petitioner has and had long teaching experience of twenty years. Allotment of twenty marks on account of Viva Voce and extra-curricular activities depends upon mere ipse dixit of the Selection Committee.
Further challenge is against the action of respondents, in particular, issue of letter of appointment in favour of respondent no. 3 directing her to assume charge of the said School with effect from August 6, 1982, deserves further attention of the Court. It is an admitted position that the appointment of respondent no. 3 was made prior to the acceptance of the letter of resignation of respondent no. 3 by the concerned authority with effect from May 6, 1983. The appointment of respondent no. 3, according to Mr. Moitra, is wholly illegal and unauthorised. Mr. Moitra referred to the following decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra and Others, ; Raj Narayan v. Indira Gandhi reported in AIR 1973 SC 1302: Balaram Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1987)3 SCJ 208.
After referring the said decisions in decisions in details and relying thereon, Mr. Moitra further made his submission that the letter of resignation becomes effective from the date of acceptance of the said resignation by the appropriate authority, the complete and effective act of resigning the post held under the Government is one which severs the link of the resign or with his or her office and terminates its tenure. Since such resignation not being accepted at the relevant time by the appropriate authority, the then Administrator, Government servant was incompetent to issue the letter of appointment in favour of respondent no. 3. The appointment of respondent no. 3 could not have been made by the then administrator for the reason that the letter of resignation of respondent no. 3 was accepted on December 15, 1983 with effect from May 6, 1983. The then Administrator in his affidavit deliberately did not explain this point. It is also glaring instance of abuse of power by the then Administrator as regards the following acceptance of panel and the transmission of panel for the approval thereof along with the attested copies of papers to his participation in the Selection Committee District Inspector of Schools, Nadia, issue of letter of appointment is favour of respondent no. 3 and the ground that the terms of Mr. Mondal as Administrator expired on July 31, 1932. Respondent no. 3 was fully aware of her employment in the Government even then she flouted the norms and the relevant provisions as regard the acceptance of the letter of appointment as also her joining the post of Headmistress at the time when she was still in government service. The serious challenge of the petitioner as made by Mr. Moitra is that the Selection was made in violation of Rule 6(a) & 6(b) of the direction issued in exercises of powers Conferred upon the Director of Secondary Education, West Bengal by Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-rule (i) and by Clause (i) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions. Here, reference to paragraph 5 of the said directions as contained in Memorandum dated August l, 1981 in merited. Relevant portion of the said Memorandum reads thus:
There shall be a preliminary screening of the candidates. This should be done by calculating the marks which a candidate- is due to secures in different examinations as per Chart showing allotment of marks. Normally, not more than ten candidates for each post, on the basis of the marks, obtained, shall be called for interview. For this purpose, candidates should be asked to furnish attested copies of their mark sheet along with their applications. A record of preliminary screening should also be prepared and be opened to inspection by District Inspector of Schools (SE) or any officer authorised by him. Any candidate having any grievance about the selection shall have the right to appeal in District Inspector of Schools(SE) and the decision of the District Inspector of Schools(SE) shall be final in this meter.
6(a) The Committee shall have to assess the qualifications of the candidates on the basis of different examinations qualifying for the post,
(b) The Committee shall have to assess the experience of such candidates.
(c) Extra curricular activities should be considered.
(d) Performance at the interview, should also be taken into consideration.
The Selection Committee shall award on all the four items mentioned above in the following manner:
POST GRADUATE DEGREE
(i)
MATRICULATION/S. F.
P.U.
1st Division
10 Plus
10
- 20
2nd Division
8 Plus
7
- 15
3rd Division
5 Plus
5
- 10
Comp./P.
4 Plus,
4
- 8
Or Old Higher Secondary
.
examination
1st Division
20
2nd Division
15
3rd Division
10
Comp./P.
08
(ii)
DEGREE
Honours
1st Class
20
2nd Class
18 (60% and above)
-do-
15 (below 50%)
Spl. Honours
13
Pass Course
with Distinction
12
Pass
10
(iii)
POST GRADUATE
1st Class
16
2m d Class
12 (50% and above)
-do-
10 (below 50%)
or 3rd Class
(iv)
B.Ed, or equivalent (should be treated as a qualification for a teacher mainly meant for Class V to X)
1st Class
1 5 (69% and above)
2nd Class
10(below 60%)
(v)
Experience (teaching in recognised educational institutions). One mark to be allotted for each year of experience not exceeding ten marks in aggregate- 10.
(vi)
Extra-curricular activities
- 5
(vii)
Vive-Voce
- 15
The selection was held in complete negation of the direction as referred to hereinbefore. As regards, the failure of the respondents to produce the records of the case, Mr. Moitra urged that it is incumbent upon the statutory authority to maintain the records of the case and pointed out the serious contradiction appearing in the affidavits of Shri Biswanath Chakrabarty, the affidavit of Shri Usharanjan Debnath, the affidavit of Shri S.K. Mondal, the then Administrator and respondent no. 3. The contradictions as highlighted by Mr. Moitra are, inter alia, as follows. That the records of the case, according to Mr. Usharanjan Devnath, could not be kept with the petitioner as she was a candidate for the post and as such, an interested person, the then Administrator in his affidavit along with the report stated that he ceased to act as an Administrator of the said school, after submission of papers for approval of the appointment of the respondent no. 2 acted as an Administrator, therefore, did not disclose the correct state of affairs in the affidavit affirmed on July 12, 1988. In answer to query no. 5, the Administrator stated that he never allowed the respondent no. 3 to assume the charge of the Headmistress at Krishnanagar. Such statement was ex facie contrary to the records of the case for sole reason, that the Administrator continued to act till August 10, 1982, but the respondent no. 3 assumed charge of the said school as Headmistress with effect from August 6, 1982. The petitioner brought to the notice of the concerned authority about her grievance by representation dated August 10, 1988 as permissible under the statutory direction but the representation was not disposed of at that point of time. Respondent no. 3 was given more marks than she was entitled to. The allotment of marks in breach of paragraphs 6(a) and (b) of the directions constitute incurable infirmity crept in the selection proceedings. It is an admitted position that respondent no. 2 namely, the then Administrator know respondent no. 3. The then Administrator himself submitted that since he was functioning as Administrator of the said school when he had no alternative but no participate in the selection proceeding. It is, further, submitted that the respondent no. 3 was not subordinate to him in official capacity. The basic question that emerges that the respondent no. 3 was not officially subordinate to the respondent no. 2. For the sake of uprightness and candour, respondent no. 2 should have opted out from the said proceedings.
On a careful scrutiny of the papers produced before this Court. Mr. Moitra after refereeing to and relying on the relevant portions of the report of the Director of Secondary Education, affidavits of Sri Biswanath Chakraborty and the affidavit of Sri A. K. Mondal, the then Administrator of the said school made a serious thrust on the question of good administration. Good administration as traced by Mr. Moitra is meant for promoting and securing welfare of the citizens. Administration is required to be efficient in the sense the objectives of policy and mandates of statutes are scrupulously and rigorously implemented without any favour and fear. It should not only fulfil urge and aspiration of the citizens but also satisfy their conscience it is operating and proceeding with reasonable regard to the balance between the public interest which it promotes and promote interest which it affects. Fairness, openness, incorruptibility and efficiency constitute the basic structure of good administration. It is the claim of Mr. Moitra that the appointment of the respondent no. 3 is null and void for the reasons set forth hereunder. The Administrator has and had no competence, authority and power to appoint the respondent no. 3 as Headmistress of the said school at the time when he ceased to be the administrator.
The records of the case did not disclose that there was effective, and proper compliance of the directions and the rules. No record showing receipt of all applications of all the candidates and relevant papers connected therewith was produced before this Court. Record is required to be preserved and shall remain open for inspection of the District Inspector of School or any other officer authorised by him. It is unfortunate that the records were not produced. Nothing more than a sad commentary is warranted. Respondent no. 3 was ineligible for appointment and for joining the said school as Headmistress at the time when her letter of resignation was not accepted by the competent authority.
Mr. Pabitra Bose, the learned Counsel appearing for State/respondents initially took up the plea, that the appointments and approval of the respondent no. 3 was valid, proper and legal and there was no infirmity in the said appointment, that nothing was shown by the petitioner, nor there did exist and illegality which would warrant the passing of the order declaring the appointment and approval of the respondent no. 3 absolutely infirm in law,
Mr. Bose subsequently at the stage of final hearing submitted that he limited his submission only on the basis of the report filed by the Director of Secondary Education. Mr. Suprokash Banerjee also made similar submissions.
Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, the learned Advocate, seriously resisted the plea of respondent no. 3 contending, inter alia, that respondent no. 3 fulfilled all conditions for being appointed as a Headmistress, that the selection proceedings was valid., proper and legal, that there was no procedural impropriety and illegality as claimed, that para 6(a) and (b) were validly and properly complied with, that the records of the entire selection procedures was with the petitioner, that there was no deviation and departure from the Rules and/or directions issued by the Government.
Mr. Mukherjee further advanced his submission that the petitioner never raised all these grievances at the time when she appeared before the Selection Committee nor did. she herself submit any objection to the participation of Chaitnya Kipsonia, the Principal of Santipur College, that the petitioner herself requested the authority to extend the term of the respondent no. 2 as Administrator of the said school, that there was no basis for challenge after the petitioner placed below respondent no. 3, that the petitioner was allowed to draw salary pursuant to the order by Mr. B.C. Ray J. Moitra in his reply claimed and contended that the entire procedure as regards, the holding of the selection is vitiated by the factors illegality, impropriety and irrationality. It is also seriously commented that the District Inspector of Schools should have considered the merits of each candidate. The Selection Committee shall effect preliminary screening of the candidates. By calculating the marks of the candidates, that the Selection Committee is required to assess the quality on the basis of the candidates'' qualification for the post. The word "assess" means and implies that the Election Committee is to objectively estimate the quality founded upon qualification and other factors of the candidates, similarly the experience of a candidate is to be determined in depth. No original broadsheet was produced before this Court as a result whereof the functions of the Selection Committee in terms of the paragraphs 6(e) and (b) of the rules could not be gone into but the salient facts, not in dispute, remain that the allotment of marks in favour of respondent No. 3 was in clear departure from the chart showing yardstick for allotment of marks for the post. It is not shown how the petitioner could be recorded 10 marks against her passing Higher Secondary Examination in the Compartmental Examination. It is an admitted position that the respondent no. 3 passed the Higher Secondary Examination nor she did have eight years teaching experience as a result whereof she was not entitled to 10 marks and 8 marks respectively against the concerned columns.
Now turning back to the facts as placed above as also the report submitted by the Director of School Education and the affidavit submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the affidavit of Sri Usharanjan Debnath, the Court is required to consider the following :
(i) Whether the appointment and approval of respondent no. 3 was valid and legal;
(ii) Whether the respondent no. 3 could be appointed to the post of Headmistress at the time when her letter of resignation was riot accepted;
iii) Whether the Selection Committee acted properly in terms of the direction of the Government;
(iv) Whether the District Inspector of School is required to maintain the records of the case and the effect of failure to produce the same.
On careful analysis of the allotment of marks made in favour of respondent no. 3, I am of the view that on the basis of an admitted position respondent no. 3 was actually accorded more marks than she was entitled to. This constitutes serious illegality particularly when the other candidates whose position could not have been looked into in the absence of record of the case. The approval of the appointment of respondent no. 3 by the District Inspector of School was made at the time when the petitioner was still in Government service.
Decisions cited by Mr. Moitra in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Mishra (supra), Raj Narayan v. Indira Gandhi (supra) and Balaram Gupta v. Union of India (supra), laid down the principle that the tenure of the Government servants stand terminated with effect from date of acceptance of letter of resignation by the appropriate authority. Till the acceptance of the letter of resignation is effected, there is no cessation of the relationship between the Government and its servant. Supreme Court while dealing with the word "resignation" in case of Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Mishra & Others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 699 observed that "resignation" in the dictionary sense, means the spontaneous relinquishment of one''s own right. This is conveyed by the maxim Resionstioest Jurist propil spontanea refutation. In relation to an office, it connotes, the act of giving up or relinquishing the post. To "relinquish an office" means to "cease to hold" the office, or to "lose hold of" the office and to "lose hold of office", implies to "detach" "unfasten" "undo or untie" the binding knot or link which holds one to the office and the obligations and privileges that go with it".
It is further held in the aforesaid case that in the general juristic sense, also, the meaning of "resigning office" is not different. There also as a result both the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concomitant act of its relinquishment, are necessary to constitute a complete and operative resignation although the act of relinquishment may take different forms or assume a unilateral or bilateral character depending on the nature of the office and the conditions governing it. Thus, resigning office necessarily invokes relinquishment of the office, which implies cessation of termination of, or cutting asunder from the office. Indeed, the completion of the resignation and the vacation of the office, are the casual and effectual aspects of one and the same event".
The decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Mishra & Ors. (supra) was relied on in case of Balaram Gupta v. Union of India & Anr. (supra). Considering the totality of the circumstances as effectively placed before this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the report of the Director of School Education, I am of the view that once the notice of "resignation is given by a Government servant, it does not become operative immediately, but it would be operative the moment the Government accepts the letter of resignation. There is no unilateral termination of dissolution of the relationship between the Government and its servant prior to the acceptance of the letter of resignation.
Sabyasachi Mookerjee, J., while speaking for the Court in case of Balaram Gupta v. Union of India (supra) held that "it may be salutary requirement that a Government servant cannot withdraw a. letter of resignation or of voluntary retirement at his sweet will and put the Government into difficulties by writing letters of resignation or retirement and withdrawing the same immediately without rhyme or reason. If properly exercised the power of the Government under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, may be a salutary rule. Approval, however, is not pisi dixit of the approving authority. The approving authority who has the statutory authority must act reasonably and rationally. The only reason put forward in the instant case is that the appellant (Government servant) had not indicated his withdrawal. This was sufficiently indicated that he was prevailed upon by his friends and the appellant had a second look at the matter. This is not an unreasonable reason. There are guidelines for considering and deciding in the matter of accepting or refusing the withdrawals of notice of voluntary retirement. The guidelines are that ordinarily permission should not be granted unless the officer concerned is in a position to show that there has been a material change in the circumstances in consideration. of which the notice was originally given. In the facts of the instant case such indication has been given. The appellant has stated that on the persistent and personal requests of the staff members, he had dropped the idea of seeking voluntary retirement. It is not clear how this could not be a good and valid reason. It is true that he was resigning and in the notice for resignation he had not given any reason except to state that he sought voluntary retirement. There is nothing wrong in this. In the modern age, we should not put embargo upon people''s choice or freedom. If, however, the administration had made arrangements acting on his resignation or letter of retirement to make other employees available for his job, that would be another matter but the appellant''s offer to retire and withdrawal of the same happened in so quick succession that it cannot be said that any administrative set up or arrangement was affected. The administration has now taken a long time by its own attitude to communicate the matter. For this purpose, the Government is to blame and not the appellant. It is held further that there has been compliance with the guidelines because the appellant has indicated that there was a change in the circumstances, namely, the persistent and personal requests from the staff members and relations which changed his attitude towards continuing the Government service and induced the appellant to withdraw the notice. In the modern and uncertain age, it is very difficult to arrange one''s future with any amount of certainty, a certain amount of flexibility is required and if such flexibility does not jeopardize Government administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow the appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement in the facts and circumstances of this case. Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. The Court can not but condemn circuitous ways "to ease out" uncomfortable employees. As a model employer the Government must conduct itself with high probity and condour with its employees".
The Director of School Education also in his report observed that this is a serious irregularity that the Administrator should not have allowed her to join, had he known Srimati Gouri Goswami as the State Government servant. It is, therefore, clear that before the acceptance of the letter of resignation, decision of the then Administrator to allow the respondent no. 3 to join the post of Headmistress of the said school is wholly null and void. The then Administrator made the statements contrary to the records of the case. Mr. A.K. Mondal acted as the then Administrator of the said school till August 10, 1982 and during the period of his functioning as Administrator, respondent no. 3 was allowed to join the school as the Headmistress. Who can be blamed for this? The Administrator was well aware that the term expired around July 31, 1982 and he had ample scope to verify these facts which he never cared to do so. Keeping in mind all the objectivities and materiality of the aspect of the resignation as effectively placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the appointment and approval of the respondent no. 3 as Headmistress of the said school before the acceptance of the letter of resignation is wholly unauthorised, unjustified and in negation of law.
The basic challenge as to whether the appointment and approval of the respondent no. 3 could be made before the acceptance of the letter of resignation thus succeeds. The views that have taken finds its support from the relevant materials placed before this Court, the report of the Director of School Education and the decisions of the Supreme Court as discussed above.
Now down to the point whether the Selection Committee acted properly in terms of the directions of the Government. I, before embarking upon this aspect, am required to dwell, upon the disturbing and shocking state of affairs that has taken a sweeping grip over the administration of the office of the District Inspector of Schools. Nadia. Sri Biswanath Chakraborty never cared to look into the affidavit of Usharanjan Debnath. He acted on the basis of the letter dated June 20, 1988 written to him by respondent no. 3 and ought to have looked into the affidavit filed by his predecessor-in-office on September 27, 1985. Despite the averments as contained in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit affirmed by Sri Usharanjan Debnath, Sri Biswanath Chakraborty relied on the plea of the respondent no. 3 who did not have any respect for the truth. The averment that was made in paragraph 5 of the of the affidavit-in-opposition is to the effect that the present Headmistress informed Sri Biswanath Chakraborty that the entire records were taken by the petitioner, the then Teacher-in-Charge of the said School. Unwarranted reliance was made on plea of respondent no. 3 without having due regard to paragraph 6 of the affidavit sworn and affirmed by Usharanjan Debnath. Furthermore, the petitioner was not the teacher-in-charge of the said school at the time when the selection took place. Sri Biswanath Chakraborty made further averments in paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition sworn and affirmed on June 22, 1988, that the original papers relating to the preparation of panel by the Selection Committee including the original evaluation sheet prepared by the said Committee do not appear to be sent to the then District Inspector of Schools with the following letter of Sri A.K. Mondal, the then Administrator of the said school. It is also averred that the District Inspector of Schools considered the question of the approval of the panel on the basis of the attested copies forwarded to her along with the letter of the said then Administrator.
In this case, there as a complete deviation from paragraph 5 of the Government direction which requires that the record of the preliminary screening should be preserved and opened to the inspection by the District Inspector of School and any office authorised by her. Apart from above, on August 10, 1982 the petitioner brought to the notice of the District Inspector of Schools as regards his grievances about the manner in which selection proceedings was held. Such representation ought to have been considered by the District Inspector of School, but that was not admittedly done. The District Inspector of School should have disposed of the case in terms of paragraphs 5 of the said direction. The then Administrator of the said school should have sent the original panel and the original records which were not transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools. The present District Inspector of Schools further stated that he would not have looked to the attested paper relating to the selection proceedings had he been approving authority of the panel in question on the relevant date. He would have surely insisted the production of all the original papers for consideration of the approval of the panel. The District Inspector of Schools had no original paper before him at the time when the approval of the Respondent No. 3 was under consideration.
It is to be borne in mind that respondent no. 3 was accorded eight marks on account of experience. Paragraph 3(a) of the affidavit sworn and affirmed on.June 23, 1988 is interesting and very significant It is stated in the said paragraph 3(a) that "the assessment sheet prepared by the Selection Committee appears to me to be incorrect so far as the allotment of marks as per extent guidelines laid down". In my opinion, a panel in question was not prepared strictly in conformity with the rules and as such, the panel is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I stated herein that had I been approving authority at the relevant date, I would have disproved the said panel. I may further record herein that the teaching experience of Sm. Gouri Goswami as would appear from the paper that record is seven years. 10 marks were accorded to respondent no. 3 on the assessment sheet on the basis of Higher Secondary qualification. It is further stated by Shri Chakrabarty in paragraph 3(c) of the said affidavit that besides the letter of respondent no. 3 dated June 20, 1988, the records available in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and produced before this Court do not indicate anything about the retention of those original papers by the petitioner.
On thorough reading of the said report and other materials placed before me, I cannot but hold that the panel stands invalidated and the same thus is set aside and the appointment of respondent no. 3 is illegal and without jurisdiction.
It is proper for the Court to record that the present case unfolds the mal-functioning of the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Nadia. The Court is now to consider the conflicting versions of Usharanjan Debnath and Shri Biswanath Chakraborty. The cumulative effect of the said conflicting version is that there is no proper maintenance of record, nor the then District Inspector of School did apply her mind to the materials on record. It is a very shocking that without having the original records, the then District Inspector of Schools acted merely as a rubber stamp of the then Administrator whose conduct is reprehensible. The then Administrator exhibited extreme form of irresponsibility by issuing letter of appointment on August 5, 1982 when his term of Administrate ship ceased to be in force. In fact, on July 31, 1982, the terms of Administrator expired and the Administrator was fully cognizent of the said expiry of the terms; even then, he ventured to sit in the selection proceedings in respect of respondent no. 3 who though not officially subordinate to him is known to him by reason of her working in the office of the District Inspector of Schools.
Assuming that respondent no. 3, according to the then Administrator, not being subordinate to him officially even then, sense of impartiality warranted that the Administrator should have opted out from the said proceedings as effectively observed by the Director of School Education. The facts of a citizen (say for instance, the petitioner here) is left in the hands of irresponsible persons and/or authorities namely, the then Administrator of the Schools and the then District Inspector of School who had shown scant regard for the statutory rules the directions of the Government and maintenance of the records. The appointment of the respondent no. 3 can not be made on merely ipse dixit of the aforesaid authorities. The application of mind to the materials on record was warranted. How such application of mind could be possible in the absence of original records. Nobody cared to look into the shabby state of affairs, a routine and normal feature now noticeable in the office of the District Inspector of School.
The Selection Proceedings did not disclose as to how and in what manner the Selection Committee considered the extra-curricular activities and performance in the interview.
This aspect was also completely ignored. Provision for allotment of viva voce and extra curricular confers arbitrary power up the Selection Committee in selecting the candidates by evaluation Committee in selecting the candidates by evaluating marks. It is an admitted fact that the District Inspector of Schools stated in the affidavit in paragraph 6 of the affidavit that the original records were not kept in custody of the petitioner. Records of preliminary screening was not preserved nor open to be inspected by the District Inspector of Schools or any other officer authorised by him. No records containing interview letters required to be sent to the candidates under registered post and receipt was maintained. The original records were also not produced Respondents did not produce the selection proceedings which shall consist of two particulars, amongst others, preliminary screening and interview. The directions as are contained in Office Memo dated August 1, 1981 and Memo dated August 24, 1981 were not complied with. It is the responsibility of the District Inspector of Schools to see as to how the implementation of the administrative directions as contained in Office Memo dated August 1, 1981 and the guidance as contained Memo dated August 24, 1981 were accrued. It is too late now to restate the principle regards the effect of the administrative directions even if having no forces of statute. Non-compliance of the directions would invalidate any act or order, It is well settled principle that the executive authority must adhere to the standard by which it professes actions to be judged. The respondent, in my view, therefore, can not escape the liability for not following the procedures as prescribed by the administrative directions as stated above. As regards the empanelment of candidates. it was incumbent upon respondents herein to find out as to whether the procedure an laid down in the said administrative directions were duly followed in as much as the said directives contained in Memo dated August 1, 1981 and Memo dated August 24, 1981 are warranted to be complied with. Procedural safeguards to prevent injustice from being worked out to the candidates including the petitioner must be commensurate with he sweep of powers. Procedural safeguards must be considered in the context of and corresponding to the plenitude of the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee. As mentioned above, respondents failed to observe the procedural safeguards as a result infirmities go to the fact of the selection proceedings and offends and detracts from the fundamental concept of fair selection. Therefore there is utter breach of mandate of directions aforesaid with attendant consequences, that the selection proceedings are rendered infirm in law. There is little doubt that the actions of the respondent giving rise to the appointment of respondent no. 3 transgressed the bounds of the directions. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the stark reality which unfolds a very shady chapter of lack of fairness, ignorance, incompetence, inaptitude and inattention. It will be a futile exercise to have catscan of incompetence, irresponsibility; inefficiency and inaptitude. No answer could be found from respondents failed to observe the relevant rules, procedures and to take relevant considerations into account. The learned advocates for respondent no. 3 in their desperate bid sought to justify ultra vires actions of the respondents in particular the selection committee but illegality, thus, committed, can not be declared to be legal and valid. It is more shocking to see the conflicting versions, thus, put forward by the learned counsel appearing for respondents with a view to confusing the entire issues. It is unfortunate that respondent no. 3 being the Headmistress of the school came forward with a plea the records were taken away by the petitioner whereas the then District Inspector of Schools made clear avertments that the records were not in the custody of the petitioner. These two versions are mutually inconsistent. Competence, aptitude and efficiency are three obvious requirements for creating confidence in the administration of the government departments. Records in the present case were not maintained in a proper manner. Same attested copies were produced before the Court. It shows high officials or concerned officers at the helm of the affairs of the office of the then District Inspector of Schools, Nadia at the relevant time namely, in the year 1982 did not have any time to look into the papers or to examine the panel. How the inspection of the school records was done by the District Inspector of Schools. Relevant registers, copies of the application of the candidates, the interview letter and other records not being made available nor original documents being received by the District Inspector of Schools, the conduct of the District Inspector, the then Administrator and respondent no. 3 is not above board. The administration of the. District Inspector of Schools was then carried in languid fashion and cynical manner. There is complete manifestation of sluggishness. While dealing with the deliberate failure of the respondents to produce records of the case, I have discussed above what is meant by good administration. The present case is a shape pointer to mal-administration. Failure of the respondents to produce the records compels the Court to reach an inescapable conclusion that the respondent deliberately held back the Court from looking into the said records. Fortunately, the Director of School Education who has shown utmost fairness in sub-mining the report for enabling the Court to reach its conclusion in the manner indicated above.
Result of analysis as made hereinabove is that the Selection Committee acted in clearest breach of Rules and the directions. The functions of the Selection Committee did not conform to the requirements as enjoined upon them by law. The Court has no opportunity of looking into the applications of the candidates and the particulars thereof for the purpose of examining the foundational challenge. The Director of the School Education was also of the view that the then Administrator ought to have opened out the proceedings. In view of the illegalities as were found by the Director of School Education and Sri Biswanath Chakraborty, the present District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia the proceedings of the Selection Committee including the panel in question cannot be sustained as they are rendered invalid and accordingly I set aside the entire Selection Committee and the panel as also the appointment of respondent no. 3 as Headmistress of the said School.
Failure of the then District Inspector of Schools to maintain the records is a startling one for all those who expect fair deal in the hands of the executive. This Court feels constrained to place on record that the administration in the office of the District Inspector of Schools under the then District Inspector only reminds the Court that all the elements of maladministration seriously affected the very functioning of the said office, as a result whereof control over the functions of the school in particular the selection of the candidates in respect of the said school was almost ineffective and thereby, the Selection Committee in the facts of the present case was allowed to act in breach of the directions. Cumulative effect of the absence of the good administration and the failure of the Selection Committee for the reasons indicated above to not act in conformity with the said directions vitiated the entire selection proceedings, the panel and the appointment of respondent no. 3. The appointment of respondent no. 3 having been found illegal, respondent no. 3 shall not function as Headmistress of the said school any further.
In the circumstances, respondent no. 3 ceased to be the Headmistress of the said school from date and she will not function in the said capacity and in any manner whatsoever as the Headmistress of the said school. The Director of the School Education and the District Inspector of Schools are hereby directed to act in terms of the Order passed by this Court dated October 13, 1982, which in extense quoted in this order. The Director of School Education and the District Inspector of Schools are further directed to submit a report as regards the compliance of the order passed by this Court on October 13, 1982 as also the direction of the Court passed by this Court within four weeks from date. Respondent No. 3 subject to the compliance to the relevant rules and directions may be allowed to act as Assistant Teacher of the said School. Be it recorded that the school authorities shall take immediate steps for filling up the post of Headmistress directly in accordance with the rules and the Government Order and directions.
Teaching experience of respondent no. 3 during all these years shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of her claim for the post of Headmistress. The petitioner was functioning as the officiating Headmistress of the said school prior to the letter of appointment made in favour of respondent no. 3 by an order dated August 5, 1982 by the then Administrator of the said School. The petitioner shall function as the officiating Headmistress of the said school till the post is filled up in the manner as indicated above and till such time whatever is earlier as may be permitted the District Inspector of Schools. Respondent No. 3 is directed to make over the charge to the petitioner forthwith. The writ application is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and proceedings thereof. Let a copy of this order together with the report of the Director of School Education be forwarded to the present Director of School Education as also to the present District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia and the Secretary, Education Department Legal Remanbrancer, Government of West Bengal for their record and necessary action in the matter.