Recruitment must strictly adhere to the procedure laid down in the Recruitment Rules.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 18. 3. 98 passed by a learned single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder, inter alia, keeping in view the fact that one of the score-sheet was missing, the learned trial Judge directed: "let candidates who had appeared in the earlier interview be again called for fresh interview by the Selection Committee. In granting marks to the candidates who appear at the said interview, the Selection Committee shall take into account the score-sheets that were seized by the Police. Let the said score sheets be handed over by the Police authorities to the Selection Committee. Such interview shall take place within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order to the Selection Committee. Upon such interview being held as aforesaid, fresh panel shall be prepared on the basis of the successful candidates within a fortnight thereafter and the Selection Committee shall thereupon submit the said panel within a week thereafter to the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), Midnapore for his approval. The Selection Committee shall hold the interview and prepare the panel in accordance with the relevant rules. The Office-in-Charge of the local Police Station is directed to depute police personnel at the time when the aforesaid interview takes place so as to ensure that no interference is caused by way outsider. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of but without any order as to costs. "

( 2 ) HAD the interview taken place in terms of the Recruitment Rules, much could have been said about the order impugned in this appeal, but it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner/appellant had appeared at the interview in terms of the order dated 17. 7. 97 passed in W. P. No. 13521 (W) of 1997.

( 3 ) HOWEVER the matter came up for consideration before a Special Bench of this court (Reported in CAL LT 1998 (2) hc 398) wherein it has been held that the decision of the apex court in the case of Excise Superintendent, Mulkapatnam, Krishna District, A. P. v. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. reported in 1996 (3) SCC 216 on the basis whereof the said order dated 17. 7. 97 was passed by the learned trial Judge does not lay down an inflexible rule and in any event is not applicable. In a case where recruitment is governed by a statutory rules. The Special Bench hold: "33. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties we are of the view:- (1)the Recruitment Rules although contained directory provisions , the same are required to be substantially complied with. (2)any deviation and departure from the directions issued by the Director of School Education by reason of the said Recruitment Rules can only be made by the Director of School Education himself or by the State Government by issuing an order or a direction or guideline depending upon the facts and circumstances. (3)the Managing Committee of the respondent school is bound to follow the provisions of the Recruitment Rules and the petitioner having not raised the question of constitutionality of the said rules in the writ application cannot be permitted to do so by way of argument. (4)no direction can be issued by this court upon the Managing Committee of the school to allow any and every person to appear in the interviews although his name has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The orders issued in this behalf by same of the procedure do not lay down the correct law and must be overruled. (5)the Managing Committee cannot act in contravention of the said provision unless the same is unconstitutional. This court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot also issue a direction asking it to violate the provision of Statute".

( 4 ) IN this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be said to have appeared at the interview on his own right inasmuch as, the aforementioned order dated 17. 7. 97 passed by a learned single Judge of this court, although had no