1999 (5) TMI 616 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the delay in approval of a panel by the District Inspector of Schools, the legality of the panel preparation process, and the conditional approval of the writ petitioner's appointment.

Issue 1: Delay in Approval of Panel
The appeal challenged a judgment directing the District Inspector of Schools to approve a panel within a specific timeframe as per relevant rules. The Court noted that while the rules require approval within 30 days, such a requirement is directory, not mandatory, as established in previous case law. The Court emphasized that the statutory functionary must be allowed to exercise discretion and pass an appropriate order. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Court highlighted that the judiciary should not substitute itself for statutory authorities in decision-making processes.

Issue 2: Legality of Panel Preparation
The appellant's counsel raised concerns about the preparation of the panel, alleging violations of recruitment rules. The panel was said to have been altered and submitted late, raising questions about its validity. The Court acknowledged these concerns and emphasized the importance of the District Inspector of Schools applying his mind to the panel's validity in accordance with the law. The Court set aside the previous order and directed a reevaluation of the panel's approval, allowing for a hearing for all concerned parties.

Issue 3: Conditional Approval of Writ Petitioner's Appointment
The respondents stated that the writ petitioner's appointment had been conditionally approved, and she had already joined the school. However, the Court noted that the conditional approval was subject to the panel's validity. The Court quashed the previous order and directed the District Inspector of Schools to reevaluate the panel's approval within a specified timeframe, allowing the writ petitioner to continue on an ad hoc basis until a new order is passed.

In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta set aside the previous judgment, emphasizing the importance of statutory authorities exercising their discretion in approving panels and making decisions in accordance with the law. The Court directed a reevaluation of the panel's approval process, ensuring compliance with recruitment rules and providing an opportunity for all concerned parties to be heard.