The Rules applicable when the selection process was activated, would govern the fate of the applicant and not the Rule existing on the date of occurrence of vacancy.

Talukdar, J.

1. It would be short and sweet. The situation that has cropped up before us in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P. No. 16417(W) of 2010 of 13/08/20I0 (Annexure-P 10) remaining no longer res integra and covered by the successive Division Bench decisions of this Court and is currently is in seizin by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 24238 of 2010, should be dealt with accordingly.

2. Rendering of the Hon'ble Single Judge has been carried in appeal at the instance of the appellant hereinabove on the ground that the selection process initiated by the School Authorities beyond the period of 45 days from the date of receiving prior permission from the D.I. in terms of the Rules of 2005 does not vitiate the selection process and; that the decision of The Secretary of the Managing Committee, Kalinagar Girls' High School, Nadia v. Archana Ghosh (Saha) and Ors. reported in (2010)4 WBLR (Cal) 381 was not proper for this purpose.

We have heard Shri Bhattacharya in support of the Appeal and Shri Mitra for the State respondents.

3. Whilst it was the case of Shri Bhattacharya that the Rules of 2005 does not vitiate the selection process if the requisitions are not sent to the Employment Exchange within 45 days; and the decision relied upon by Shri Bhattacharya in The Secretary of the Managing Committee, Kalinagar Girls' High School, Nadia v. Archana Ghosh (Saha) and Ors. (supra) in support of his contention that the Rules existing on the date of occurrence of vacancy should guide the selection process--Shri Mitra was of the view that no interference was required as His Lordship had interpreted Rule 8(5)(a) of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2005 and had discussed with regard to the applicability of the cut off period of 45 days.

4. Shri Mitra prayed for maintaining the Order under appeal in the absence of any other illegality.

Law governing the field of intra Court Appeal is quite well settled. Where we exercise, practically our Power of extended judicial review, not only we must be absolutely circumspective but be alive to the situation that our judicial daring does not upset the apple cart of a judicial review of an equally pristine Forum, who exercised its high prerogative writ under the constitutional sweep; simply whose amplified power we enjoy. Nothing more nothing less.

5. Nearly half a century ago, the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Ltd. v. Sunder Bros, Delhi, AIR 1967 SC 249, which was later on followed in Manjunath Anandappa URF Sivappa Hanasi v. Tammanasa, (2003)10 SCC 390 had held :

"..........as is often said, it is ordinarily not open to the appellate Court to substitute its own exercise of discretion for that of the trial Judge; but if it appears to the appellate Court that in exercising its discretion the trial Court has acted unreasonably or capriciously or has ignored relevant facts, then it would certainly be open to the appellate Court to interfere with the trial Court's exercise of discretion."

6. We neither feel there is any formidable compulsion or forensic exigency for this Court of appeal to interfere with the immaculate piece of rendering by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

But, as a Court of appeal simply, we cannot admire but we have to administer reasons for our decisions while in appeal.

7. After having apprised ourselves with the basic nuances of the mechanism of an Appellate Court, we would see the structure of the conclusion by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

8. Background facts leading to the file would be necessitated to be outlined before we again swim back to the mainstream. The appellant featured at the top of the panel prepared by the Selection Committee but in stead of the same being forwarded, the D.I. did not accord approval. This persuaded him to approach the Writ Court. The said Court of First Instance in W.P. No. 16456W of 2009 on 22/09/2009 found that such "candidate has not in