(1) By this appeal, the learned single Judges judgment and order has been challenged. Jamuna Ghosh Paladhi, approached this Court with the writ petition No.9919(W) of 2005, praying for the relief for granting appointment to the post of Assistant Headmistress, pursuant to the approval, said to have been granted by the D.I.

(2) The fact of this case appears to be as follows : Decision was taken to fill up the post of Assistant Headmistress of Aligung Rishi Rajnarayan Valika Vidyalaya. Eligible candidates participated in the selection process. A panel was formed and the first respondent came to be the first candidate in the said panel. In the extraordinary general meeting, managing committee of the said school decided to approve the said panel. The resolution of the said extraordinary general meeting was thereafter supposed to be placed before the regular managing committee for acceptance.

(3) Before this could be done, the managing committee received various complaints including those of selection of two candidates viz. second and third candidate in the panel, alleging that there has been undue and extraneous influence in the decision making process. It was also alleged that the expert, being one of the members of the selection committee was influenced.

(4) On receipt of this complaint, in the regular meeting of the managing committee it was decided to reverse the earlier decision taken in the extraordinary general meeting, but by this time, resolution of the extraordinary general meeting was sent to the D.I. Immediately after the aforesaid resolution being adopted in the general meeting, the managing committee requested the D.I. not to take cognizance of the earlier resolution and not to approve the panel. But by a letter in the month of July, 2004 of dated 11th June, 2004 communication of approval was sent to the school by the D.I. In the approved panel the writ petitioner/respondent was figured as the first candidate. In natural course of event, the writ petitioner / respondent should have been given appointment.

(5) However, response of the managing committee of the school concerned was just the reverse and they did not accept the approval of the D.I. rather vented that no appointment could be given pursuant to the said approval. By a subsequent communication dated 3rd January, 2005, Managing Committee asked the D.I. for granting prior permission for appointment of Assistant Head Master afresh as earlier panel was not accepted by way of ratification in the regular meeting of the managing committee.

(6) Mr. Maity appearing for the appellant submits that preparation of the panel by the selection committee was vitiated with undue influence and pressure and it was not a correct decision of the selection committee and, as such, in the regular meeting of the managing committee, on receipt of complaints and examining all the aspects, it was decided that approval provisionally granted in the extraordinary meeting should not be accepted. In spite of communication of such decision of the managing committee, the D.I. in a high handed manner, has granted approval and indeed the approval was granted ante-dating the memo of approval. Such fact of mala fide act on the part of the D.I. by way of ante-dating will be apparent from the endorsement of the Peon Book in which fact of receipt of communication is recorded to have been received on 10th July, 2004. He submits that fraud has been practised by the D.I. by ante-dating in order to subvert the valid resolution of the managing committee adopted in the regular meeting. It is surprising that in the Midnapore town itself one month time could be taken to despatch the letter of approval.

(7) Mr. Maity further submits that Court has no power to extend the life of the panel. Here, the life of the panel, under the rule, should be three months from the date of preparation of the same; whereas, the Court without any valid reasons has extended the life of the panel. The exercise of Court i