Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) This writ petition relates to consideration of grant of approval of the petitioner as second clerk i.e. non-teaching staff in the concerned school and for other incidental reliefs in connection thereto. It appears from the appointment letter of the petitioner that he was appointed as a clerk on voluntary basis on 16th October, 1995. The other part of the said letter of appointment was that the service of the petitioner will be absorbed when a new post will be sanctioned by the Authority. The petitioner, accordingly, joined in the post on such terms and conditions. It appears from the annexures that for the purpose of filling up different teaching posts as per the roll strength the Managing Committee of the said school approaches either Director of Secondary Education or the District Inspector of Schools on several occasions after 1986 but all were in vain. However, approach has also been made for filling up the post of second clerk in 1996 onwards. Ultimately, on 15th March, 1999 Director of School Education sanctioned the post of additional clerk. The letter of sanction the Director of School Education clearly indicated that school will take step to fill up the post as per the recruitment rules. By making this writ petition, the petitioner wanted to say that pursuant to the letter since he worked in the institution voluntarily in the post of second clerk which has been subsequently sanctioned he has a right to claim for consideration of his service against the sanctioned post. Although Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner wanted a mandatory order in favour of the petitioner to approve the service of the petitioner by citing an unreported judgment of this Court being dated 26th April, 2000 in W.P. No. 1412 of 1999 (Subhash Chandra Rai v. State of West Bengal and others) I do not think that the matter has so much of sound effect for any positive assertion nor the petitioner claimed for the same. Moreover, a voluntary service cannot be regarded as a service temporarily or casually or on ad hoc basis for a period more than two years. So that the Court may direct the Authority for sympathetic consideration upon following the relevant part of the judgments of the Supreme Court which is normally followed by the Court as follows : "In AIR 1998 SC 1477 (Arun Kumar Raut and others v. State of Bihar and others ) and also in 1998 (9) SCC 78 (Keshab Narayan Gupta and others v. Jila Parishad, Shivpuri (M.P.) & Anr.) where it has been held that the persons who are working as casually or temporarily they deserve sympathy for consideration even if they could not claim regularisation as a matter of course. This was considered as an equitable justice since such incumbents are not guilty of fraud or sham practice and they did not lack any requisite qualification. This case of the petitioner also be considered along with others by waiving the age bar, if necessary".
(2.) It is unbelievable that a person working voluntarily without any means for a period from 1995 till this date for sanctioning of the post without trying hard to get a better service elsewhere and also allow his age to be expired in getting such service. It further appears that the petitioner has registered his name in the Employment Exchange only on 20th July, 1998.
(3.) Under such circumstances, situation prescribes to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was being favoured by the school to make an unsuccessful attempt for a backdoor appointment which is untenable in law.;