The selection of an Assistant Teacher must be made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force at the time of granting prior permission for filling up the post, and not with any subsequent Recruitment Rules that may be introduced.

The writ petitioner moved this writ application challenging inter alia, the selection of the respondent No. 7 for the post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science in Tulin Jai-Siaram High (H.S.) School, Tulin, P.S. Jhalda, Dist. Purulia.

2. Sworn of all details, the facts of the case inter alia, are that on or about 3rd April, 1995, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia, granted permission to the abovementioned school for filling up two posts of Assistant Teachers in the said school. One of the said posts was an Assistant Teacher in Political Science having qualification Honours/M.A. (Political Science) preferably trained. At the time of granting such permission, the Recruitment Rules, 1993 were in force. On or about 6th November, 1995 the District Employment Exchange, Purulia, sponsored 20 names for the aforesaid posts including writ petitioner's name, but the respondent No. 7's name was not sponsored. On or about 1st of December, 1995, the Recruitment Rules of 1995 came into force cancelling all the previous orders of Recruitment Rules with effect from that date. On or about 11th April, 1996, the respondent No. 7 Biswanath Barui moved a writ application in this Hon'ble Court being C.O. No. 10(W) of 1996 and obtained an ex parte order. On or about 21st June, 1996 the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia, modified the earlier permission granted by him for filling up all the post of Assistant Teacher including Political Science as referred to above, changing the qualification for the said posts and such modification was made after the respondent No. 7 moved the writ application being C.O. No. 10(W) of 1996. The modification was to the extent that Honours/M.A. candidates in Political Science must have English with 300 marks as also Bengali as their combination subject. Interview letters were duly issued by the School Authority fixing the date of interview on 29th September. 1996. On or about September 11, 1996 Mr. Gouri Shankar Dey, learned Advocate, wrote a letter to the Secretary and to the Headmaster of the said school on the basis of the order passed in C.O. No. 10(W) of 1996 asking the Secretary to stop the interview till fresh names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, and the Secretary by his letter dated 23rd September, 1996 informed the writ petitioner about the cancellation of such interview. Fresh names were sought for by the School Authority from the Employment Exchange and on or about 19th May, 1997 the Employment Exchange sponsored 13 names including that of the respondent No. 7 Biswanath Barul showing him as scheduled caste candidate and physically handicapped being hard of hearing. The Secretary of the school by his letter dated 25th June, 1997 issued the interview letters re-fixing the date of interview on 19th July, 1997. In the said interview, the respondent No. 7 scored more than the other candidates including the writ petitioner. Accordingly, a panel was prepared consisting of 3 candidates wherein the respondent No. 7 was given the 1st position and the writ petitioner was given the 3rd position. On or about 5th of August, 1997, the writ petitioner moved another writ application being W.P. No. 15734 (W) of 1997 challenging the selection process and illegal markings given by the selectors and also allowing the candidates who had no combination subject in Bangali in Graduation level like respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 7 also moved another writ application in the month of September 1997 being W.P. No. 19411(W) of 1997 without making the present writ petitioner as a party therein. The Hon’ble Justice Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee disposed of the same directing the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia, to consider the panel prepared by the Selection Committee. The writ petitioner's writ application being W.P. No. 15734(W) of 1997 was also disposed of directing the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia, to consider the grievances of the writ petitioner and to