The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the selection process for a position if the plaintiff alleges that the selection authority acted in violation of rules or in disobedience to the direction of the appellate authority.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 30 of 1989 in the Second Court of Munsif Contai for a declaration that the plaintiff stood first among the candidates interviewed for selection of an assistant teacher for other declaration, permanent injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff alleges that the defendant School sponsored names of some candidates from the Employment Exchange for filling up a vacancy of an assistant teacher in the School. Since the Adhoc Committee of the school resolved to eliminate the plaintiff she had to file a writ being 2538 (W) of 1988. In terms of direction in the writ by the High Court Committee interviewed the candidates including the plaintiff. On an illegal assessment of marks one Tapati Khatua was selected although the plaintiff stood first in the selection. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Inspector of Schools who on the basis of an enquiry report cancelled the panel prepared by the Selection Committee and directed the Secretary of the school to prepare panel afresh with the candidates already interviewed. The defendant school did not prepare a fresh panel on a correct assessment of the marks obtained by the candidates in obedience to the order of the appellate authority. In violation of the order of the appellate authority fresh interview was taken on 5. 10. 89. This is not only illegal but also contrary to rules for interview. The school is bound to recast the panel on the basis of the earlier interview held on 17. 4. 88. Since the later interview was held in violation of the order of the appellate authority and in contravention of rules the plaintiff filed the suit. She also filed a petition for temporary injunction with a prayer for restraining the school authorities from preparing the panel on the basis of the interview on 5. 10. 89 and restraining the District Inspector of schools from approving the panel.

( 3 ) THE Court by an order dated 2. 2. 90 granted an ad hoc interim injunction restraining the defendants from preparing any panel of candidates for appointment of an assistant teacher on the basis of interview on 5. 10. 89 and sending the panel to the District Inspector of school for approval till the hearing of the injunction petition.

( 4 ) THE school authorities figuring as defendant 1 (a) to 1 (i) did not submit to the Jurisdiction of the Court and preferred this revision.

( 5 ) MR. Bhuniya appearing for tie revisionists contends that the defendants in the suit will not submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court since it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to him the plaintiff has only a statutory right as distinguished from a common law right means to say that the plaintiff can ask for appointment only under statutory rules and therefore she must ask for remedy of her grievances under the rules. Reliance in placed upon a number of decisions to contend that the special remedy available under the rule ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. If special right and special remedy are created or provided under the special statute, which is adequate Civil Court cannot entertain jurisdiction. These propositions are well grounded and therefore cannot be questioned.

( 6 ) MR. Bhuniya argues that the plaintiff may ventilate her grievance to the District Inspector of schools under paragraph 7 of "procedure for recruitment of teaching, and non-teaching staff? '" She cannot maintain an action in Civil Court.

( 7 ) MR. Roychowdhury contends that the defendants cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on several grounds, viz. , (1) an alternative remedy by way of appeal is available, (2) the defendants may submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and ask for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C. P. C.

( 8 ) THE power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution is to confine the subordinate Courts and Tribunals within their bo