Susanta Chatterji, J.@mdashThe present Rule was issued on 22.9.83 at the instance of the writ petitioners praying, inter alia, for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the steps taken by the respondent No. 3, President, Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, as per Annexure "A" to the petition. The panel concerned was prepared in 1983. Admittedly, life of a panel is not for an indefinite period. It is submitted by both sides that the said panel cannot be given effect to and has agreed that the same may be quashed.
2. Another aspect of this case which is being seriously contested relates to the preparation of the panel and as to the authority under which such panel is prepared. Mr. Samanta, learned Advocate for the petitioners has strenously argued before this Court that under the Rules, the District School Board is the appointing authority and in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Rules framed under the Bengal Rural Primary Education Act, 1930, it is provided that a Board shall appoint teachers, whether temporarily or substantively, only from the panel of qualified teachers for the district forwarded by the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal and in accordance with the said directions, if any. It is further provided in Rule 3B(I) of the said Rules that the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal, may with the approval of the State Government, set up a Selection Committee in each district to assist him in. selecting suitable persons from amongst the candidates for inclusion in the panel of qualified teachers for the district. According to him, under Rule 3B, the Director of Public Instructions has the power to select suitable persons with the approval of the State Government and/or to delegate his power to a Selection Committee in each district. The said Rules does not confer the right to appoint the District School Board of the Ad hoc Committee to become the Selection Committee for the preparation of the panel to enable the self-same District School Board or the Ad hoc. Committee to appoint the teachers in terms of Rule 3(1). If there is any issuance of any administrative order as it has been done in the present case, copy of which is annexure "E" to the writ petition, the scheme as envisaged in Rule 3(1) of the Rules will be frustrated.
3. Mr. Sircar, Learned Advocate for the District School Board has drawn the attention of this Court to look into the entire scheme and to visualize the scope of appointing and/or setting up a Selection Committee to prepare panel in terms of the Rules and the impugned orders as involved in the present case are neither contrary to nor inconsistent with the Rules and the petitioner cannot challenge the same. It is for the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal to exercise his right under Rule 3B(1) of the Rules or to delegate his power to a Selection Committee. If the Director of Public Instructions has the right to delegate and a Selection. Committee, becomes, a delegated authority, it cannot be argued that the delegated authority acts in a way to frustrate the scheme as envisaged in Rule 3(1) of the Rules under the Act. An individual and/or a statutory authority may have more than one capacity. In one capacity it can act as a Selection Committee and in another capacity it can act as an appointing authority unless both the capacities are having conflicting interests and also in such a case, nothing can be presumed in law. In dual capacity any authority can act in law unless the same is conflicting in nature and/or conflicting to the activities and/or manifest in justice against specific institutions.
4. This Court with all anxieties has considered the case made out on behalf of the respective parties. Having gone through the instant Rule and in particular looking to Rule 3(1), this Court finds that the Board has to appoint teachers only from the panel of qualified teachers for the district forwarded by the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal. Rule 3(1) of the Rules clearly contemplates that the appointment must be made by the Board but the selection will have to be made not by the Board, but the Director of Public Instructions himself, or by its delegated authority. Rule 3(1) clearly further indicates, inter alia, that the Selection Committee must be other than the Board, itself and that the Director of Public Instructions himself has the authority to prepare a panel or considering the circumstances delegate the power by setting up a Selection Committee. This is not in doubt. The power of the Director of Public Instructions to delegate its authority is not in question, but can the Director of Public Instructions delegate its power to a Selection Committee which would be the Board itself and/or the ad hoc committee and by such process the scheme as envisaged under Rule 3(1) would become nugatory. In the instant case, this Court finds that by issuing the impugned order, copy of which is Annexure "E" to the petition, there cannot be any administrative order which will be contrary to and/or inconsistent to Rules and furthermore this Court does not appreciate that the Director of Public Instructions would be entitled to set up a Selection Committee in a circuitous way and delegating the power to the Board itself who is the ultimate appointing authority.
5. Considering such aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Director of Public Instructions and/or the Selection Committee appointed by him is entitled to prepare a panel, but such a delegated authority will not be the District School Board and/or the Ad hoc Committee. The District School Board remains the only appointing authority, but cannot act as a Selection Committee.
6. Hence, the impugned order and/or direction in Annexure "E" to this, petition is set aside and/or quashed. The Rule is, therefore, disposed of without costs. All other orders are vacated.
