Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.

1. The writ petitioner was permitted to appear at the interview in view of leave granted by this Hon'ble Court. The writ petitioner passed through the selection process along with the other candidates who have applied for the (Group 'D7 post in the concerned school. After holding interview a panel was prepared but in view of order passed by this Hon'ble Court the panel could not be considered and approved by the concerned District Inspector of Schools. Mr. Bari, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent made an application for addition of party as a party respondent in this proceeding. Such application was allowed.

2. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that there is no hard and fast rule to the effect that only Employment Exchange sponsored candidate should be given appointment. Moreover, the candidate who appeared, in view of Court's order could also be given appointment.

3. Mr. Bari submits that there is Division Bench judgment and Special Bench judgment in support of his contention.

4. Mr. Maiti, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner referred judgment delivered in, AIR 2010 SC 2821 (Union of India and Ors. v. Miss. Pritilata Nanda) wherein it was held that although eligibility criteria for sponsorship candidate from Employment Exchange was made essential but such requirement cannot be construed as mandatory, persons selected and place in merit list despite not being sponsored by Employment Exchange cannot be denied appointment.

5. Learned Counsel submits in view of aforesaid Supreme Court decision the concerned District Inspector of Schools should be directed to consider and approve the panel prepared by the selection committee.

6. Mr. Bari submits that this view is not acceptable specially when the writ petitioner got permission by a Court's order to appear at the interview. According to him, the writ petitioner's candidature should not be considered and he should not be employed. He submits that the panel prepared by the authority should be cancelled. He submits that there is Special Bench decision which supports his client's contention.

7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considered the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that even a non-sponsored candidate could be considered provided he passed the selection test and has been empanelled for selection. When this writ petition was filed the petitioner also challenged Rule 8(5)(a) of the West Bengal School (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005 as unconstitutional. Since the Rule was under challenge the learned Single Judge directed the writ petitioner to serve a notice upon the learned Advocate General.

8. The writ petition has come up for final disposal. The only question which falls for determination before this Court is whether the permission and/or order passed in favour of the writ petitioner allowing to him to appear at the interview would disentitle him to have appointment although passed through the test and empanelled as first candidate in the select list.

9. In a Special Bench judgment consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court reported in, 2005 (3) CHN 337 (Rabindra Nath Mahata v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) wherein it was held that there is no obligation to recruit only the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange. Therefore, it is clear that even a candidate who has contested and/or appeared at the interview by any such Court's order is also eligible. There is no hard and fast rule to give appointment to the candidates only sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

10. In another Division Bench judgment reported in, 2008 (2) CLT 461 (HC) (Sanjit Kumar Sheet v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) it is held "it is no longer open to the respondents to argue that the candidature of the appellant herein could be rejected only on the ground that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange". Overall the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision clea