Alok Roy and Others vs Director of School Education and Others

Maharaj Sinha, J.—The Six writ Petitioners herein had jointly initiated this writ proceeding essentially for regularisation or approval of their respective appointments as teaching and non-teaching staff of Nilambarpur J. D. Vidyamandir, at Nilambarpur, in the district of South 24-Parganas.

Out of six Petitioners, five of them claim to have been appointed as organizing assistant teachers and the other as a non-teaching staff, namely, non-teaching Group-D staff by the Organizing Managing Committee of the unrecognized section, namely, classes IX and X of the said school.

The respective dates of the respective appointments of the Petitioners are mentioned in sub-paragraph-V of paragraph 2 of the writ petition. It appears that the writ Petitioners were all appointed by the said Managing Committee between March 1, 1992 and May 1996. In fact, apart from one appointment in the month of May 1996, the other five appointments of the writ Petitioners were made between march 1992 and August 1993.

Pursuant to the earlier order of Justice Amitava Lala of this Court made on the earlier writ petition of the writ Petitioners herein, the Director of School Education, the first Respondent herein, after considering the respective cases of the Petitioners for regularisation or approval of their respective appointments, by his order dated July 11, 2002 refused to approve or regularise the appointments of the Petitioners as organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school. Needless to mention, it is that order of the Director of School Education, West Bengal dated July 11 2002 which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

The sole question, therefore, is whether the Petitioners are legally entitled to seek approval or regularisation of their respective appointments as teachers of the said school or should be more appropriately called as assistant teachers of the said school.

Before dealing with the merits of the above impugned order of the Director of School Education, I would briefly mention the facts which according to the Petitioners have given rise to the "common cause of action" in favour of the Petitioners herein.

The said Nilambarpur J. D. Vidyamandir was first established with only two classes, namely, classes-V and VI as junior high school and it received its legal recognition on January 1, 1970. After its recognition, the school introduced two more classes, namely, classes - VII and VIII and the said classes - VII and VIII were also recognised by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education with effect from April/May 1991.

In the same year i.e. 1991, the school authority considering the demand of the local people and especially girl students of the area or areas decided to introduce classes - IX and X as there was no "high school" for girls in the area or rather areas in the neighborhood. With the introduction of the said two classes, the admission of students were taken and the particulars of the number of students, as admitted in the said classes - IX and X right from the year 1992 - 2000, are mentioned in the writ petition.

It should also be noted that simultaneously with the recognition of the said school as junior high school by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in the year 1991, six posts of teachers were sanctioned including the post of headmaster and in due course, since the number of students increased, the Director of School Education also sanctioned one additional post of assistant teacher, apart there from there was a sanctioned post for one clerk and one Group-D staff. Thus, for the junior high school, there were altogether seven sanctioned posts of teachers and two sanctioned posts of non-teaching staff.

Needless to mention that the above posts were sanctioned or could be sanctioned rather, only after the school received its recognition as junior high school and not before such recognition, as a school can only claim its legal existence once it is recognised and not before its recognition by the competent authority.

The Petitioners were all appointed by the Organizing Managing Committee by the respective resolutions and from their respective dates of appointments, the said five Petitioners started imparting education to their students in classes -IX and X and the other Petitioner also started serving as a non teaching staff of the school or rather the unrecognized section of classes-IX and x of the school.

After introduction of classes-IX and X and after the appointments of the teaching and non-teaching staff for running and holding the upgraded section of classes-IX and X, the school authority applied for recognition of the said upgraded section of classes-IX and X to the authority concerned, namely, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.

The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in order to decide the case of recognition of the said upgraded section of the school sent a District Level Inspection Team, who visited the said school on January 14, 2000 and subsequently gave its report.

The case of the Petitioners were and are that though the Petitioners were regularly discharging their duties as teaching and non-teaching staff of the said upgraded section of the said school and their regular presence was duly recorded in the attendance register maintained by the school, yet the names of the Petitioners were not recorded in the report of the "District Level Inspection Team". On the contrary, the District Level Inspection Team obtained an affidavit from the school authority to the effect that the school authority did not appoint any teaching and non-teaching staff for the upgraded section of classes-IX and X of the said school.

From the affidavit used in opposition to the writ petition on behalf of the school authority, it appears that the school authority was, in fact, compelled to give such affidavit, as the school authority was told that without such affidavit declaring that no teaching and non-teaching staff had been appointed by the school authority "for the proposed upgraded section of classes-IX and X", the Inspection Team would be compelled to submit an adverse report and in that event there would not be any question of recognition of the said upgraded section. The school authority was compelled to part with such affidavit as without such affidavit, the chance of obtaining recognition of the said upgraded section of the said school was not only too remote but was virtually nonexistent.

Eventually, the said report was placed before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education along with the said affidavit and the Board of Secondary Education gave its recognition to open Class-IX from May 1, 2000 and Class-X from May 1, 2001 provisionally. The decision of the Board of such recognition was, in fact, communicated to the school authority on10 May 2000 by the letter of the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (in short the Board).

The last, but one paragraph of the said letter is set out below:

In view of this Recognition as a High School the existing Managing Committee has been converted to an Organizing Committee and allowed to function upto 30.12.2000 with the direction to reconstitute the Managing Committee in accordance with the provision of the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institution (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 in short the Management Rules, 1969). Indeed, until the upgraded section was recognised, namely, Classes-IX and X of the said school, there could not be any question of applying the provisions of the said Management Rules or any provisions of the Management Rules, in the first place, or rather at all as the said section or sections or rather the said classes-IX and X before their recognition had no legal existence.

What is noteworthy however is that the Board, in fact, recognised that there was an Organizing Committee, namely, Organizing Managing Committee for organizing the said section of classes-IX and X as without such Organizing Committee, the school in question could not introduce the upgraded section of classes-IX and X, the Organizing Managing Committee, the school could not run the day to day administration which was required to hold or run such classes, without such Managing Committee, the school could not effectively control or manage the day to day function of the said two classes, without the Organizing Committee, the school could not look after the interests of students, who were admitted to attend the classes-IX and X (the upgraded section), without the Organizing Committee, the school could not retain and effective control over the teaching and non-teaching staff, who were appointed by the said Organizing Committee by the above resolutions for effectively holding and/ or running the said classes.

In this situation, the question of applying the Management Rules, 1969 or any other Rule or Rules or any other provision or provisions of the statute, namely, (West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963), really did not and could not arise, as the said statute or the provisions of the said statutes and/or Rules framed thereunder were and are applicable to such institution or institutions, which have the legal existence or, rather, are recognised in the eye of law.

Since the organized section of classes-IX and X before their recognition by the Board had no legal existence, but the school was seeking such legal recognition of such section, the existence of an Organizing Committee, to organize the said classes, was a necessity and that is why the Secretary in his said letter dated May 10, 2000 made it clear that the Organizing Committee was allowed to function up to December 30, 2000 and thereafter reconstitution of such Committee was to be made in terms of the provisions of the said management Rules, 1969.

Unless the Board, in fact, had recognised, as it did, the existence of an Organizing Committee for the purpose of organizing the said two classes or the upgraded section of the said school, the question of allowing such Organizing Committee to function up to a certain time even after the recognition of the said two classes would not have arisen.

However, since, after the recognition of the said two classes-IX and X or rather after the recognition of the school as a high school, the appointments of the Petitioners herein, as teaching and non-teaching staff, were not regularised by the authority concerned, namely, by the concerned District Inspector of Schools, the Petitioners herein initiated a writ proceeding, W. P. No. 12982 (W) of 2000 in this Court.

On August 30, 2000, his Lordship Justice M. H. S. Ansari was pleased to pass an interim order to the effect that the Respondents should maintain status quo with regard to the appointments of the Petitioners as teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school for a limited period, which order, however, was directed to continue subsequently.

It is also to be noted that in passing the above interim order, his Lordship had relied on an order of this Court dated April 19, 2000 made on an earlier writ petition where this Court deprecated such practice of obtaining/undertaking from the school authority by way of "affidavit" on the plea that unless such "affidavit" was affirmed or given, non recognition would be granted.

In fact, by the said order dated April 19, 2000, as relied on by Justice M. H. S. Ansari, this Court had set aside an identical affidavit, which was obtained by the concerned District level Inspection Team when it visited the school in question in connection with its recognition by the Board.

the said writ petition was eventually heard and disposed of by an order on august 8, 2001. Before I mention the text of the said order, it should be noted that the said writ petition was disposed of after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties including the State Respondents, who, it appears, in spite of direction, did not use any affidavit to oppose the writ petition though this Court extended the time more than once for using such affidavit by the State Respondents.

The said order dated August 8, 2001, is, in my opinion, has an important bearing upon the merits as well as the stand taken by the State Respondents in the present writ proceeding and as such, i would very briefly deal with the same.

(a) Firstly, by the said order, the first inspection report of the District Level Inspection Team, which visited the school for the purpose of making its report in connection with the up-gradation of the above section of classes - IX and X, was not accepted to have reflected the corrected picture as far as the question of the appointments of the Petitioners as organizing teaching and non-teaching staff and their continuation as such staff was concerned. The said report could not give the correct picture as to the appointments of the Petitioners as organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of their services and presence at the school on the day of DLIT''s visit to the school for inspection, as the said terms entirely relief on and based its report solely on the said affidavit which the said team obtained from the school authority by coercion as explained above.

(b) Secondly the concerned District Inspector of Schools, i.e. South 24-Parganas, was directed to send an inspection team for visiting the school for the purpose of finding out whether the writ Petitioners herein were working as teaching and non-teaching staff of the school in question.

(c) Thirdly, upon such inspection, the Team was directed to place its report without "making any comments before the Director of School Education, West Bengal" who would finalize the issue as to whether the writ Petitioners were entitled to be regularised or approved as organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of the said upgraded section of the said school, which was recognised as high school along with the recognition of such upgraded section, with out giving any credence to the said "affidavit" and only on the basis of consideration of the said "second report" of the District Level Inspection Team.

Two more important things need be mentioned about the said order. One was, if the Director found that the writ Petitioners were appointed as the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of the said section of the said school, then he was to take steps for approval of their appointments "immediately thereafter". Secondly, an interim order was also made to the effect that the respective status of the writ Petitioners as teaching and non-teaching staff would continue for a limited period.

Needless to mention, the said interim order, in fact, was extended from time to time and is still operative by virtue of subsequent orders of extension of the said interim order.

It is, however, of utmost importance to note that the said order dated August 8, 2001 was not challenged by the concerned Respondents herein, on the contrary, the District Level Inspection Team in question, in fact, visited the school in terms of the said order and sent the said report to the Director of School Education for its consideration in terms of the above order of this Court.

Needless to mention, the second report prepared pursuant to the above order had gone entirely in favour of the writ Petitioners herein, as the District Level Inspection Team found that the writ Petitioners were discharging their duties as teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school while the Team visited the school for inspection.

It is to be pointed out at the cost of repetition that the concerned Respondents did not question the validity of the order of this Court dated august 8, 2001, on the contrary, they accepted and implemented the same by sending the District Level Inspection Team for making the inspection of the school in terms of the said order and the Director in his turn considered the case and passed the impugned order.

In my opinion, since the Respondents concerned did not challenge the validity of the said order of this Court, they could not and cannot now be allowed to agitate the point that the school authority or rather the Organizing Managing Committee of the said school was not empowered to appoint any organizing teaching and/or non-teaching staff for the purpose of organizing the said section of classes - IX and X of the said school in the first place.

The very fact that the said order was acted upon, makes one thing abundantly clear that the concerned Respondents did not dispute that the Organizing Committee was empowered to appoint organizing teaching and non-teaching staff and the only question that was to be ascertained or gone into, by the Director, was whether the writ Petitioners were duly appointed as organizing teaching and non-teaching staff as claimed by them and not whether the Organizing Committee was empowered under the law that they had such authority to appoint both organizing teaching and non-teaching staff for the purpose of organizing the said upgraded section of classes-IX and X.

Indeed, the concerned Respondents apart from raising a dispute for the first time never questioned the legal authority or entitlement of the Managing Committee of the said upgraded section of the said school to appoint organizing teaching and non-teaching staff for the purpose of organizing the said section of classes-IX and X of the said school and their eventual recognition from the Board.

In my opinion, the concerned Respondents did not question the entitlement or the authority of the Organizing Committee to appoint organizing teaching and non-teaching staff for the purpose of organizing the said section of classes-IX and X and for their eventual legal recognition and the concerned Respondents themselves or rather the Government itself framed a policy or policies in recognition of the right or rights of an Organizing Committee of an unrecognized institution or unrecognized part of such institution to appoint organizing teaching and non-teaching staff for the purpose of organizing the institution or part of such institution for its eventual recognition.

The said policy or policies of the Government, in my opinion, have been made public with sufficient clarifications in a number of Government orders and/or memorandums to which I would briefly refer, shortly.

This policy of the Government of recognizing such authority on the part of an Organizing Managing Committee of an unrecognized institution to appoint organizing teaching and non-teaching staff had and/or has an independent existence and the existence can only be found in different orders and/or memorandums issued by the Government from time to time and not in Management Rules, 1969 which ware framed under the provisions of the (West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act 1963, to be precise, under the provisions of Sub-section (1), Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the West Bengal Board of secondary Education Act 1963.) Clause (c) of Section 2 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 says:

Institution" means a secondary school or an educational institution or part or department of such school or institution imparting instruction in Secondary Education. By its very definition the institution or school means "recognised" institution or school.

By the above definition, it is also clear that an institution can be partly recognised and partly unrecognized and that is why the words "part or department" have been used in defining an "Institution". Clause (d) of Section 2 of the 1963 Act says "Managing Committee" used in reference to an institution includes the Governor or the Governing body of such an institution. The Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969 have simply borrowed the definitions of "Institution" and "Managing Committee" from the said 1963 Act.

From Rule 1 of the said Management Rules, 1969, it is clear that the said Management Rules, 1969 were and are meant for and/or applicable only to "recognised" (Aided and Unaided) Non-Government Institutions.

Therefore, an institution, which has not yet been recognised by the authority which has the authority to recognise an institution, namely, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, cannot claim any benefit under the said Rules nor can the provision or provisions of the said Rules be made applicable to such an institution which is not a recognised one and as such has no legal existence in order to attract the said Management Rules, 1969. It has first to be established that the institution in question is a recognised non-government institution and if the institution though non-government is not a "recognised one" then the Management Rules, 1969 have, in my opinion, no manner of application to such institution.

In the present case when the Organizing Managing Committee of the said upgraded section of classes-IX and X appointed tire Petitioners as organizing teaching and non-teaching staff (appointments ranging from 1992 to 1996) could not claim any benefit, could not exercise any power or authority, nor the said Organizing Managing Committee was obliged to discharge its duties and functions in accordance with the said Management Rules of 1969 because that upgraded section of classes-IX and X was not recognised though the school in which the said upgraded section was introduced, had received its recognition as a junior school from the authority concerned, namely, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.

There is nothing either in the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 or in the said Management Rules, 1969 which prohibits or precludes from having more than one Managing Committee, the one meant for managing the recognised part of an institution and the other meant for organizing unrecognized part of or section of the same institution.

It is in recognition of such a concept of Organizing Managing Committee, the Government, in my opinion, issued or has issued from time to time a number of Government orders/memorandums where the Government or rather the education department of the Government tried or has tried to spell out its policy or policies regarding approval of appointments of "organizing teachers" or rather organizing teaching and non-teaching staff appointed by an Organizing Managing Committee of unrecognized institution or unrecognized part of a recognised Institution.

The above position, that the Management Rules, 1969 applies to a recognised non-government institution only, is even clearer from the provisions in Rule 3 of the said Management Rules, 1969, the provisions say:

Every recognised non-government institution shall have a Committee to be constituted in the manner and for the purpose hereinafter appearing.

The word "Committee", needless to mention, obviously refers to the Managing Committee as evident from Clause (c) of Rule 2 of the said 1969 Rules.

Therefore, whether an unrecognized institution can or cannot have a Managing Committee before such institution receives its recognition from the Board cannot, however, be found either from the provisions of the said Management Rules, 1969, or from the express provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963.

However, the fact remains the Board, in fact, in giving its recognition to the upgraded section of classes-IX and X of the school in question, made it quite clear that in view of the recognition granted by the Board of the said upgraded section of classes-IX and X, the existing Managing Committee, meaning thereby the Organizing Managing Committee, could function up to a particular date, namely, December 30, 2000 but such committee had to be reconstituted in accordance with the provisions of the Management Rules 1969. The reconstitution became necessary as the upgraded section of classes - IX and X was recognised by the Board and on that basis, the school in question received the recognition as a high school and as such the Organizing Committee was given the breathing space by which the reconstitution of the Managing Committee had to be made in terms of the provisions of the said Management Rules, 1969.

This direction in the order of recognition of the Board had, in my opinion, two fold purposes. Firstly, it recognised the existence of the Organizing Managing Committee which, in fact, was responsible in organizing the said upgraded section of classes-IX and X of the said school and which, needless to mention, gave the respective appointments of the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school, who are the Petitioners herein, and secondly, the Board made it clear that in view of the recognition of the said section from the date of recognition, the Managing Committee of the said school which was before its recognition termed as Organizing Managing Committee and acted as such, would, from the date of recognition, be governed by the provisions of the said Management Rules, 1969. Since I have already quoted the above part of the Board''s direction earlier, I would not repeat it again.

This direction itself shows that the Management Rules, 1969 had no application to the upgraded section of classes-IX and X so long the said section remained unrecognized, as the said Rules, as I have said before, were and are meant only for "recognised non-government institutions".

Until May 1, 2001, the school in question was only recognised as a junior high school but by virtue of the order of recognition by which the said upgraded section of classes-IX and X of the said school were recognised, the said school was recognised as a high school. The order itself says that the recognition "has been granted to the school in question as a high school" and since until the date of recognition of the said high school, there was no recognised high school, there was no question of applying the Management Rules, 1969 to the said high school, but the said Rules would or could only apply to the recognised part of the said school, namely, junior high school in view of the earlier recognition of the said school as a junior high school.

Similarly, under the provisions of Rule 28 of the said Management Rules, 1969, the Managing Committee of a Recognised Aided Institution can only exercise its authority under the provisions of Rule 28 of the said Management Rules 1969. A Managing Committee of an institution, namely, the present Organizing Managing Committee of the unrecognized section of the said school could not exercise its authority under Rule 28 of the Management Rules 1969 until the said section of the said school received its recognition from the Board.

The Government or its education department, in my opinion, therefore, was or is not in any way precluded as it could not be precluded by any of the provisions of the statute, namely, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 nor under the provisions of the said Management Rules, 1969 from framing its policy so far the question of recognition of an institution was and is concerned and so far the question approval or regularisation of the appointments of the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an unrecognized institution is concerned.

The Government or rather its education department, in fact, through several Government orders and/or memorandums tried to spell out its policy regarding the approval of appointments of teaching staff of newly recognised high and junior high schools. At the hearing, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners, in fact, referred to various Government orders and/or memorandums, copies of such Government orders and/or memorandums relating to the approval of appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff of recognised secondary schools (high and junior high) have also been annexed to the Written Notes of Arguments filed on behalf of the writ Petitioners, the particulars of such Government orders and/or memorandums are mentioned below:

GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL Education Department Secondary Branch No. 343 Edn-(S) Dated: Calcutta, the 3rd March, 1973

Sub: Payment of Grants-in-aid to recognised Non-Government High and Higher Secondary School.

GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL Directorate of Secondary Education 6, Bhabani Dutta Lane, Calcutta-73 No. 1036 (16)-Sc/S/7R-28/81

Dated: 21.4.1982

From: The Director of Secondary Education, West Bengal.

To The District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Edn.)

Sub: Approval of appointment of teaching staff of newly recognised Secondary Schools (High and Jr. High).

GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL Education Department Secondary Branch No. 895-Edn (S)/4A-53/87

Dated: 30. 9. 1992

To: The Director of School Education, West Bengal.

Sub: Approval of appointment of Organizer teacher and non-teaching staff in Secondary Schools upgraded by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.

GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL Directorate of School Education 6, Bhabani Dutta Lane, Calcutta - 700 073 Memo No. 2586 (18) SC-G Calcutta, the 21st October, 1992

From: The Director of School Education, W. B.

To: The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Sub: Approval of appointment of Organizer teacher and Non-teaching Staff in Secondary Schools upgraded by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.

GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL School Education Department, Secondary Branch No. 117-SE (S)/4A-50/93

Dated: 24.2.1995

MEMORANDUM

Sub.: Approval of appointments of organizer teachers and non-teaching staff in Non-govt. Secondary Schools newly recognised as four class Jr. High School or newly Upgraded to High School by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.

GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECONDARY BRANCH BIKASH BHAVAN, SALT LAKE, CALCUTTA-700 091 511-SE(S) No. ----- Dated: Calcutta, the 29th March, 2000 4A-6/2000

MEMORANDUM

Sub: Approval of appointment of organizer teachers and non-teaching staff in Jr. Madrasah and Jr. High Madrasah upon their up gradation by the West Bengal Board of Madrash Edn.

In my opinion, the above Government orders/instructions/memorandums amongst others contain the policy or policies of the Government or its education department regarding approval of 2CAL CALCUTTA SERIES 67 appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an institution after its recognition. The Government or its said department, in my opinion, was and is perfectly within its bound to frame or take such policy or policies and there was or is nothing either in the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 or in the said Management Rules, 1969 by which it can be said by any stretch of imagination that the Government was or is precluded or in any manner estopped from adopting or taking such policy or policies regarding appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff, who were and are to be appointed before the recognition of an institution in question and the procedure of approval of such appointments of an institution after it receives its recognition by the competent authority, namely, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.

The above Government orders/memorandums/ instructions cannot be ignored or brushed aside on the plea that those were or are issued contrary to any statute or statutory provisions. I have not been able to find out any provision under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 or under the Management Rules, 1969 or anywhere else, which restrains or prevents or precludes the Government from framing a policy regarding approval of appointments of both organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an institution or part of an institution after its legal 2006 September 13 ALOK ROY and Ors. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION and Ors. Ma ha raj Sinha J. recognition.

The very fact that the Government framed such policy or policies for approval of such appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff shows that the government approval in principle to give recognition of such concept of organizing teachers or rather organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an institution who are engaged or appointed and take part in organizing a particular institution or organizing section or sections of a recognised institution. If an institution is recognised as junior school then the said institution cannot claim that it is both a junior high school and a secondary school at the time until the said institution is, in fact, recognised as high school by the competent authority, namely, the Board of Secondary Education.

On this basis, I repeat that there is no difficulty of an institution which has already received recognition in part to have two Managing Committees, one is a Managing Committee of a recognised section of such institution and one is an Organizing Managing Committee of a section which is still to be recognised or awaiting its recognition.

I also, at this juncture, must say that in case of a Recognised Non-government (Aided and Unaided) Institution, the Managing Committees thereof will be governed by the provisions of the management Rules, 1969. But there is nothing wrong in having more than one Managing Committee of one institution, a Managing Committee for the recognised part of the institution and an Organizing Managing Committee for organizing and for effective management of the part of the same institution which, as aforesaid, is still to be recognised or awaiting its recognition.

The question of appointing an organizing teacher in a sanctioned post cannot and does not arise as there cannot be any sanctioned post in an institution or a part of the institution which has not yet been legally recognised by the competent authority. The teachers named as organizing teachers or organizing non-teaching staff are not appointed and cannot be appointed in any sanctioned or unsanctioned vacant post because the question of sanctioned or unsanctioned vacant post can only arise, as aforesaid, in a recognised non-government institution (aided and unaided) where as I said above, the said Management Rules, 1969 would apply and, therefore, the Recruitment Rules or other relevant Rules regarding appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff have to be followed by the Managing Committee of such Recognised Non-government Institutions (both Aided and Unaided) when such Managing Committee of a recognised institution or recognised part of an institution appoints both teachers and/or non-teaching staff for serving the recognised institution. By the expression "institution", of course, I do not and cannot mean the minority institutions governed by Article 30 of the Constitution of India, for such minority institutions, there exists separate Rules.

In the case of 1998 WBLR (Cal) 223 Hem Prova Sarkar v. State of West Bengal the Division Bench was considering an appeal against an order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge refused to approve the appointment of a class-IV employee of a school. The approval of appointment of the class-IV employee, namely, the writ Petitioner therein was refused on the ground that her appointment was not made in terms of the "Recruitment Rules" though the Petitioner relied on a circular in seeking approval of her appointment. It was held by the learned Judge that in view of the "Recruitment Rules", the writ Petitioners could not take the benefit of the circular in question.

Although the appointment of the writ Petitioner in the above case was initially approved, but the said approval was subsequently withdrawn on the ground that the school was not a recognised one. However, eventually the upgraded section of the said school was recognised from a specified date but even thereafter the appointment of the writ Petitioner was not approved.

Speaking for the Division Bench, his Lordship Justice Satyabrata Sinha, in fact, disapproved the view taken by the learned Single Judge that since the writ Petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, her appointment could not be regularised, his Lordship said "we are afraid that the approach of the learned Trial Judge does not appear to be correct. So long the school was unrecognized one, the question of applicability of Recruitment Rules would not arise."

The Division Bench Having accepted the position that the appointment of the writ Petitioner as an organizing non-teaching staff would be governed by the circular and not by the Recruitment Rules, as her appointment was made when the school was not even recognised, the concerned District Inspector of Schools was directed to approve the appointment of the Petitioner and in so doing the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench in directing the authority concerned to approve the appointment of the Petitioner. The Division Bench, in fact, relied on one of the Government orders which was framed in identical terms to the Government orders/ memorandums/instructions of the Government relied upon by the Petitioners herein to which I have already referred.

In W.P. No. 13623 (W) of 2003 (unreported) Sri Prabitra Kumar Chatterjee and Ors. v. Director of School Education and Ors. the learned Single Judge of this Court had the occasion of considering a case of approval of appointments of organizing teachers of an upgraded section of the school, the learned Judge, in fact, said that it was difficult to understand as to how an upgraded section of a school could be recognised without recognition of the effort and labour of the organizing staff, who were and are their to organize such section, as without those organizing teaching and non-teaching staff, the unrecognized section of such school or rather unrecognized class or classes of such school, namely, a recognised school would never receive its "factual existence". His Lordship said "factual existence", which I have termed in my judgment as "legal existence".

His Lordship, therefore, recognised that the appointment of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff for organizing an institution or part of such institution was a must and no bar could be created by the Government upon the Organizing Managing Committee and the only thing that had to be seen, was that the requisite qualification and the age of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff were satisfied or rather were in accordance with the conditions contained in the relevant Government order or orders or circular/s or memorandum/s or instruction/s in connection with or regarding the appointments and approval of appointments of organizing teaching non-teaching staff of such institution.

In the above case, the learned Judge, in fact, directed regularisation of the appointments of the organizing staff of the organized section of the school in question in setting aside an order of refusal of such regularisation of the concerned Director of School Education. The judgment on the above writ petition, it appears, was delivered on November 22, 2004.

Apart from the above decisions, there has by now a long line of decisions whereby both the Hon''ble Division Benches and the Hon''ble Single Judges of this Court had and have recognised the concept of organizing teachers or rather organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an unrecognized institution and after legal recognition of such institution or institutions, orders have been passed consistently for approval of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of such institutions as the natural consequence of such recognition of the institution or a section of such institution. All those decisions have been based on the policy or policies of the Government, which have, from time to time, been reflected in a number of Government orders/instructions/ memorandums/circulars and the like, regarding approval of appointment or appointments of organizing teaching an non-teaching staff, some of which have been referred to above.

As I have said above, this power of the Government of framing its policy regarding approval of teaching and non-teaching staff of an organizing school or institution or a section thereof has not in any been restricted or curtailed or taken away by any existing statue including the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 and the said Management Rules of 1969 or any other Rule or Rules made either under the provisions of the said 1963 Act or the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 or any other Acts or Rules framed thereunder.

The power of the Government to issue its instructions regarding its policy or policies including the policy or policies (in this case policy of approval of appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an institution once such institution receives its recognition) is derived from the Constitution itself. None can question the authority or the power of the Government to issue instruction or instructions regarding its policy on a particular matter and such power of the Government has always been recognised by Courts through judicial pronouncements. The only thing that has to be borne in mind, however, is that in issuing instructions regarding its policy the Government cannot act or is not entitled to act contrary to any statute or statutory provisions and/or Rule which has the force of law.

It was sought to be contended on behalf of the first, second and the third Respondents herein that the power of the Managing Committee of an institution to appoint teaching and non-teaching staff is defined under Rule 28 of the Management Rules, 1969 which contemplates that an appointment could only be made by the Managing Committee of a recognised non-government institution (aided and unaided) within the sanctioned strength of the teachers and other employees.

Indeed, the Managing Committee of a recognised non-government institution had and has the power both under the old and the new provisions of the said Rule 28 to appoint teachers and other employees in the manner provided under the said Rule 28 itself. In case of "appointments of both teachers and other employees permanent or temporary" if and when a vacancy or vacancies are available within the sanctioned strength of the teachers and other employees, these two expressions, namely, "if and when" available in the said Rule 28 are, in my opinion, of immense importance.

Thus, when an institution or a part of an institution receives its recognition, question of appointment of teachers and other employees may not arise because on such recognition there may not be any vacancy both in respect of a teacher or a non-teaching staff. A vacancy, after a school receives its recognition, may not arise at all because of the presence of the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff and because of their regularisation upon recognition of such institution or after the said institution receives its recognition. In my opinion, the two expressions, namely, "if and when" regarding vacancies, were used by the legislature, as it was in the contemplation of the legislature that power to appoint teachers and other employees in a recognised institution can only be used "if and when" such vacancy arises and not before. Therefore, if a vacancy arises after the institution receives its recognition, such vacancy for appointment of teacher or other employee can only be filled in strictly in terms of Rule 28 by a Managing Committee of a Recognised Non-government Institution (Both Aided and Unaided).

Rule 28, however, as I have said before, of the Management Rules, 1969 or rather the Management Rules, 1969 themselves have no manner of application to a case or cases of regularisation of appointment or appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff. I do not intend to repeat the reasons in support of my above view once again.

The decisions of the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, in 2004 (7) S.C.C. 112A Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Ors., were confined to the questions both factual and legal as raised in the respective cases before the Supreme Court, I do not think that the facts of this case and the questions which have arisen herein, have anything to do with the facts and the questions which were before the Supreme Court in the above two decisions, as such, those two decisions need not be specifically dealt with for my present purpose.

On the above basis, the other decisions mentioned in the Written Notes of Arguments on behalf of the first, second and the third Respondents need not be considered either.

It is interesting, however, to note that the concerned Respondents have not found it necessary to deal with the number of Government orders or instructions or memorandums regarding approval of appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an educational institution as issued by the Government from time to time in the first place. Nothing has also been mentioned why no objection was raised by the State Respondents when on the earlier writ petition this Court directed that the District Level Inspection Team should make a fresh inspection for the purpose of finding out whether the writ Petitioners herein were appointed and discharging their duties as the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of the said upgraded section of classes IX and X of the said school and on the basis of the report of the said team upon such inspection, the Director of the School Education was to decide issue of regularisation of the appointments of the teachers and the non-teaching staff of the school.

The validity of the said order was never questioned, as, I think, the Respondents or rather the concerned Respondents herein knew full well that the Government by its circulars and/or instructions and/or memorandums were from time to time laying down procedures based on the policy or policies of the government regarding regularisation of appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an institution once such institution or a part thereof received recognition from the competent authority, namely, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.

However, In 2004 (1) S.C.C. 297 Aloke Jyoti Maitra v. State of West Bengal and Ors. his Lordship Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya had the occasion to deal with a case of approval or regularisation of appointment of an organizing teacher who was seeking regularisation on the basis of a Government order/instruction/memorandum/circular dated 24 February 1995. After deciding that the relief or relief�s sought for in the said writ petition were not barred by the principles of Res judicata or constructive Res judicata, his Lordship held that since the appointment of the organizing teacher, namely, the Petitioner therein was made by the Managing Committee of the school beyond the sanctioned strength as contemplated under the provisions of Rule 28 of the said Management Rules, 1969,''the appointment of the Petitioner was without any authority of law.

His Lordship, however, was of the opinion that since the initial appointment of the Petitioner was contrary to the Rules, namely, provisions in the said Management Rules, 1969 or rather Rule 28 of the said Rules, the executive instructions issued by the Government could not approve the illegal appointment contrary to the said Rule.

Apart from the above, it was found on facts that the Petitioner only performed his duties till a particular time, namely, August 1995 and even according to the instructions issued by the Government only those organizing teachers could be approved, who continued till the time of inspection by the district Level Inspection Team which Team in all cases of recognition of institutions prepares its report for consideration of the Board for the purpose of recognition of a particular institution in question. His Lordship also found on facts that the Petitioner, in fact, performed his duties till August 1995 and thereafter he did not perform, as the school authority could not hold the classes - IX and X for want of students.

Whether, the Petitioner therein was working as an organizing staff or not on the day when the school was recognised or when the District Level Inspection Team visited the school for the purpose of preparation of its report was entirely for the learned Judge to decide on the basis of the established facts before his Lordship As far as the legal question is concerned, as a matter of general proposition of law, whether an Organizing Committee has any power to appoint organizing teachers in the absence of any specific provision in the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 i.e. the Parent Act, as termed by the Hon''ble Judge, and/or in the Management Rules, 1969, I have already given my reasons and held that so far as the appointment or appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff are concerned in an organizing institution or in an organizing section of a partly recognised institution, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 and the Managements Rules, 1969 made under the provisions of the said Parent Act of 1963 do not contain any express provision whatsoever regarding appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an organizing school.

Both the so-called Parent Act of 1963 and the management Rules, 1969 are concerned with an "institution" which has the legal existence, that means a duly "recognised institution".(An educational institution which is established (in most of the cases) by the will and the efforts of the people of a particular area to cater the need of the local students mostly, in seeking recognition from the competent authority, cannot claim any benefit, or right, cannot enjoy any power and does not have any obligation to discharge under the provisions of the said 1963 Act or the said Management Rules, 1969 until the said institution receives its "recognition" from the competent authority. The recognition (in most cases) is usually made by the Board on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee constituted by the Government for such purpose.

The introduction of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 which came into force with effect from 1 November 1997 is also silent regarding the appointments and regularisation of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff. From a plain reading of Section 9 of the said Act, it is clear that the said Act is only prospective in nature and it has no retrospective operation at all.) The word "school" used in Section 9 of the said Act means as it must mean a recognised school and the words "Managing Committee" also mean as they must mean Managing Committee of a recognised institution as defined both in the said Parent Act of 1963 and also in the said Management Rules, 1969.

Under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the 1997 Act any appointment on or after the commencement of the 1997 Act means appointment of an assistant teacher holding a teaching post of a "recognised institution", namely, recognised by Board or Council or Board of Madrasa, (as the case may be) the word "teacher" also includes headmaster or headmistress of a recognised school as well, (see Section 2(p) of the 1997 Act.)

An organizing teacher or an organizing non-teaching staff is appointed by an Organizing Managing Committee of a school before such school receives its legal recognition and upon recognition of the institution or top school, the question of regularisation or approval of an organizing teaching and/or non-teaching staff arises.

In the present case, all the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff were appointed before the 1997 Act was made only for the purpose of protection those teachers, who were appointed before the commencement of the 1997 Act. The present Petitioners undoubtedly were appointed before the commencement of the 1997 Act and, as such, they are undoubtedly protected by the provisions of Section 10 of the said Act. There is no denial and cannot be any doubt that by the order of regularisation or approval of appointment of an organizing teaching or non-teaching staff, the teacher or the non-teaching staff is not appointed once again or afresh, but his earlier appointment is only regularised or approved by the order of regularisation or approval of the competent authority.

The Government, in my opinion, had to issue instructions by way of Government orders/ memorandums/circulars etc., as the Government, as I have said before, in principle, recognised the appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff for the purpose of organizing a school or an institution or a part of such institution and for the purpose of regularisation of such appointments, the Government from time to time has laid down procedures as to how such appointments can and should be regularised once the "institution" receives its recognition.

Sections 9 and 10 of the above Act, therefore, need be read combined in order to appreciate the effect of both the provisions in their respective fields and the intention of the legislature in making both the provisions in Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Incidentally, however, it should also be pointed out the Section 15 provides that the provisions of the Act or rather the Act will not apply to certain schools, one of such class of schools is a school not in receipt of any financial assistance from the State Government. The unrecognized part of the said school in the instant case admittedly could not and did not receive any financial assistance from the State Government till it was recognised as high school in May 2000-2001.

Thus, the Petitioners having been appointed much before the commencement of the said Act as organizing teaching and non-teaching staff were and are entitled to be regularised and no provisions of the Act create any embargo upon the authority to regularise or approve the appointments of the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff, namely, the Petitioners herein of the said school.

In Mr. Hassan and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. W.P. No. 1448 of 2002 (unrepeatable), I had the occasion to deal with a very similar if not identical case to the present one where some teachers and non-teaching staff were claiming for approval of their respective appointments as organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of a high Madrasa. I took the view that the appointments of the writ Petitioners therein were not and could not be affected by the provisions of Section 9 of the said 1997 Act, as the appointments of those teaching and non-teaching staff were made before the 1997 Act came into force and the writ Petitioners therein were only seeking regularisation or approval of their respective appointments. I directed immediate regularisation of the appointments of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the said Madrasa, the concerned Respondents preferred an appeal against my judgment in the above case, and on appeal�his Lordship Justice Altamas Kabir speaking for the Division Bench was pleased to approve the view that I had taken in dealing with the observations of mine in the said judgment. The Division Bench on appeal also fully approved the concept of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff in modifying the operative part of the direction contained in the judgment under appeal.

The Division Bench, needless to mention, took note of or rather relied on various circulars or rather Government orders/memorandums issued from time to time by the education department regarding regularisation/approval of the appointments of the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an "institution".

The Government, in my opinion, is fully aware that the 1963 Act, namely, the Parent Act or the management Rules, 1969 do not contain any provision for organizing teachers or rather appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff by an Organizing Committee of an organizing school, and that is why the Government had and has to issue Government orders/circulars/memorandums regarding the regularisation of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an institution when such institution receives recognition or after such institution receives its recognition from the competent authority namely, the Board constituted under the said Parent Act of 1963.

All these instructions were or have been issued so far because neither the provisions of the said Parent Act of 1963 nor the said Management Rules, 1969 govern an unrecognized school or institution, or an institution which is yet to be recognised by the competent authority or the Government.

In the above decision of (Supra) Aloke J. Maitra, the other decided authorities on the question were not considered. For example the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Hem Prova Sarkar (Supra) and in AIR 2000 (Cal) 73 State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Abdul Quddus and Ors. were not considered. A number of decisions both of the Hon''ble Single Judges and the Hon''ble Division Benches of this Court were also not referred to or considered.

it is worthwhile to note that in (Supra)Abdul Quddus (supra), a circular was relied upon on the basis of which it was sought to be argued that permission was to be obtained from the Board or from the appropriate authority before setting up a "school" or an "institution". The said circular also discouraged establishment of schools or institutions in general. In dealing with the said circular his Lordship Justice Satya Brata Sinha speaking for the Appeal Court (is Lordship was then the Acting Chief Justice) observed:

so far as the circular dated 26.4.1978 is concerned, the same was not issued by the State in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The matter relating to regulation of education in the State of West Bengal is governed by statute known as West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963. The said Act nor the rules framed thereunder provide for grant of recognition of schools, nor provide for the modes and manner which are required to be followed for such grant�. The said circular letter does not provide for any consequence in relation to any school, which might have been started without obtaining any permission from the Government or the Board. No procedure has been laid down in the said circular as to how and in what manner such permissions are to be obtained. In terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, State has taken over the control in respect of the secondary schools. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education having been created under the said Act, specific power had been delegated to it only in terms of the said statue, and thus, in our opinion, vague instructions could not have been issued that permission to start a school should be obtained either from the Government of the Board.

Having held that the above circular or the provisions therein were not mandatory. It was observed:

the very fact that the State Government and/ or the Board, in similar situation, had granted recognition to other schools, also is a pointer to the fact that the State Government or the Board had not considered the said provision to be mandatory in nature.

It appears that in (Supra) Aloke J. Maitra (supra) his Lordship informing his Lordship''s opinion on the question whether the Managing Committee of an institution had any power under Rule 28 of the Management Rules, 1969 to appoint a teacher or non-teaching staff beyond the sanctioned strength had in principle agreed with the "conclusion" of another learned Judge of this Court (Barin Ghosh, J.) in W. P. No. 2945 (W) of 1990 (irreparable) Abdul Hamid Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (judgment delivered on 3 July 2003).

It appears from the judgment of (8''Abdul Hamid Mondal (supra) that the learned Judge did not have any occasion to consider any of the decided authorities, both of the Hon''ble Division benches and the Hon''ble Single Judges of this Court on the question of approval of appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an institution when or after the same receives its legal recognition from the competent authority.

I regret, for the reasons that I have tried to give and the view that I have taken on the above question of regularisation of the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an institution upon its recognition. I cannot agree with the views expressed by their Lordships both in Aloke J. Maitra (supra) s well as in Abdul Hamid Mondal (supra). Both the said decisions, as I have said 7. Supra 5. Supra above, did not have any occasion to consider the other decided authorities of this Court on the question of regularisation of appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff once an institution or part of an institution receives its recognition and as such both the above decisions are to be held to have been given "per incuriam".

Furthermore, apart from my views which are based on, and supported by the views expressed in the other decided authorities of this Court on the question (including the decisions of the Division Benches), I am bound by the said decisions where the power and authority of the Government of issuing instructions regarding approval of appointment or appointments of the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an organizing school on its recognition have, both expressly and/or impliedly, been recognised and relied upon in directing regularisation of appointments of organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of an institution.

On the above basis, I would not term the respective appointments of the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of the said institution or part of the institution when it was being organized "as back door appointments" in the first place, for in an unrecognized institution, there cannot be but one door and that is the front door. I am also not prepared to say that any illegality or impropriety or even irregularity was committed by the Organizing Managing Committee of the said section of the said institution in appointing the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff for the purpose of organizing the said section of classes - IX and X of the said school in the first place.

The recent full bench decision of the Supreme Court in Secretar Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, . also made it clear that even in case when the initial appointment of person was "irregular" but if such person had continued to work without the intervention of Court''s order for 10 years or more his appointment should be regularised.

In the present case, I am of the opinion that there was no irregularity or impropriety far from any illegality in the appointment or appointments of the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of the unrecognized section of the said institution. The District Level Inspection Team, also in its report, has recognised that the Petitioners were duly appointed by the Organizing Managing Committee and they had and/or have been serving the said institution uninterruptedly since the respective dated of their appointments ranging from 1992 to 1996 (except one teacher, five of them were, in fact, appointed in between 1992 and 1993).

The relevant Government orders and/or instructions and/or memorandums relied on by the Petitioners also recognise the authority of the organizing Managing Committee to appoint organizing teachers and non-teaching staff for organizing a school or a section thereof either expressly or impliedly. The Petitioners, needless to mention, have the requisite qualifications to perform their duties as organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of the upgraded section of the said school. The organizing staff have devoted their times, their learning�s, their experience for organizing the school or rather the section of the school since their respective appointments commencing from 1992. All conditions and/or requirements were also fulfilled by the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff as well as the school authority before the school authority and/ or the teachers sought for regularisation of their respective appointments.

In spite of the above, the Director of School Education, in my opinion, only with the object of rejecting the case of the Petitioners passed the impugned order and in making his order, the Director took most irrelevant considerations into account leaving out the most relevant factors. The Director merely observed that the Managing Committee of the school in question "took it upon themselves" to open classes IX and X though they were not authorised to open such classes. What the Director meant by this vague comment on his part, I have not been able to comprehend. Nothing had or has been shown to substantiate the comment, of the Director; it is the Director, in my opinion, on the contrary, recorded the above finding without any basis whatsoever. Nothing had or has been shown from where it can even be said that any permission was, in fact, required by the Organizing Managing Committee to introduce the said upgraded section of classes IX and X under any Government order or memorandum or circular issued by the Government or its education department.

However, in my opinion, after the order of this Court dated August 8, 2001 made on the said earlier writ petition of the writ Petitioners, the scope of the Director''s enquiry with regard to the approval or regularisation of the respective appointments of the Petitioners herein became extremely limited. This Court specifically directed the District Level Inspection Team to visit the school premises to ascertain whether the Petitioners were, in fact, discharging their duties as teachers and non-teaching staff of the said upgraded section of classes IX and X of the said school. By virtue of the said order, therefore, the Director was precluded from questioning whether the Managing Committee rightly introduced the said section of classes IX and X, particularly when the said section of classes IX and X was recognised by the Board by its order dated May 10, 2000. The other findings recorded in the Director''s order are so irrelevant that I do not think, I should deal with them as those should be rejected outright and I reject those findings as those findings are based on utter irrelevant considerations, if at all, any consideration had taken place.

The Director also called the said section of classes IX and X to be a "coaching centre", wherefrom he got this novel idea of calling it a "coaching centre", the Director alone could tell, when, as I have said above, the said section of classes IX and X was already recognised by the Board by its said order dated May 10, 2000.

In my opinion, in considering the case of the Petitioners for their "regularisation" or "approval", the Director acted without jurisdiction or rather far in excess of his jurisdiction as the said order, as I have said above, is based on utter irrelevant considerations, if there was any consideration at all. I would, however, term the said order a "fanciful" one.

In the end, the Director took refuge under the said School Service Commission Act, 1997 in ''rejecting the case of the Petitioners for regularisation/approval. I have already dealt with in somewhat detail why the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 had and has no application to the case or respective cases of the Petitioners for regularisation of their appointments as the organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of the school in question or rather the said upgraded section of the school, I do not intend to repeat them once again.

The impugned order of the Director dated July 11, 2002 is thus set aside.

Both the Director of School Education and the district inspector of Schools concerned, namely, the first and the second Respondents herein are directed to regularise the appointments of the Petitioners as teaching and non-teaching staff with effect from 1 May 2000 being the first date of recognition of one of the said two classes IX and X within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Needless to mention, once such regularisation takes place, the Petitioners will be entitled to receive the salaries and other benefits on the basis of their regularisation approval of appointments in terms of the above direction.

The writ petition in thus disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given expeditiously.