R.K. Mitra, J. - (1.) In this appeal prayer was made for the disposal of the F.M.A.T. No. 3293 of 199? by directing the Chairman, Ad hoc Committee. Murshidabad (Primary School) Council, to approve the service of the petitioner from the date of the recognition of the School; pay his arrears of salary including emoluments and pay his monthly salary month by month, in accordance with law. It would appear, that this matter has a checkered career. There have been diverse appeals and contempt applications from orders made by Court, including application for modification or orders, and fresh writ application. It would be convenient, I should think at this stage, to advert to the facts of the case. It has been alleged, that the appellant was an organiser teacher in Singedda Primary School in Murshidabad. The school had thereafter obtained recognition, by the appropriate authorities, on January 4. 1972. According to the appellant, though on the basis of regular interview his name had been empanelled for appointment as an assistant teacher in the School on February 13,1980. the respondent authorities wrongfully and illegally did not give appointment to the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner had moved a writ application before this Court, which had been marked CO. No. 19356(W) of 1992. It would appear from the Order dated September 17. 1992. being Annexure 'ID' to the petitioner, that the respondent No. 3 and 3(a) had been served with copies of the petition and were represented in Court by Advocates. Direction was given by Court for filing of affidavits, and the District Inspector of School (Primary Education) Murshidabad to which I shall refer as the DI, for short, in this order, was the respondent No. 3(a) in this petition, was directed to file a report in respect to the claim of the appellant
(2.) The writ application was disposed of by an order dated December 12. 1995. It was recorded in the order that the DI had furnished the report, though the respondents were not represented nor any affidavit had been filed on their behalf. The report of the DW was not denied or disputed by the respondents. The Hon'ble Judge who had made the order, was of the view that it appeared from the report, "the horrible state of affairs dealing with the writ petitioner. "In accordance with the proposal made by the DI, in his report, the Hon'ble Judge directed: the respondents to accord approval to the petitioner from the date of recognition of the school and also pay his salary, which he is entitled to from the said date of recognition. The respondents are also directed to pay to the petitioner his salary, month by month and to act in accordance with law. The direction should be complied with within three weeks from the date of communication of this order to the respondents. The direction was reiterated in the order dated December 19, 1995 which had been made while disposing of an application for modification of the order dated December 12, 1995. In a contempt application which had been moved by the appellant, for non -compliance of the order dated December 12, 1995, a rule was issued by Court on February 5, 1996. The respondents made an application on March 8, 1996 with a prayer for recalling the order dated April 24, 1996, by which the application for modification of the two orders dated December 12, 1995 and December 19, 1995 had been dismissed by an order dated June 6, 1996, and at the suggestion of Advocate for the respondents, which was not objected to by the appellant appearing in person, the appellant was directed to make a comprehensive representation before the Chairman, Murshidabad District (Primary School) Council, and the Chairman was directed to "consider the said representation.............. after giving personal hearing to the writ petitioner and dispose of the said representation with a reasoned order." The Chairman in compliance with the order of the Court, disposed of the matter by observing that he was "unable to hold that, Sri Mondal, the petitioner, worked continuously as an Organiser Teacher of the School in question and as such the undersigned has no right or authority to recommend his prayer for approval as an Organiser Teacher to the appropriate higher authority." The appellant in those circumstances made this present writ application which was marked as F.M.A.T. No. 3293 of 1997 and which, according to the appellant, arose out of the contempt proceedings.
(3.) The petitioner had been appearing in person throughout the proceedings in Court, as according to him financially he was unable to afford the assistance of an Advocate. Mr. Asok De a Senior Advocate of this Court, who was present in the Court was requested by the Appeal Court, and the respectable Senior Advocate was agreeable to render every assistance to the appellant in these proceedings before this Court. The matter had been adjourned. The appeal was disposed of by an order dated July 15, 1998, by a Bench where I was one of the Judges, and the presiding Judge has since retired. In its order, the Appeal Court had infact confirmed the two orders dated December 12, and 19, 1995 and directed the respondents to carry out the terms of the two orders.;