Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) In this writ petition a prayer has been made for approval of the service of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 as organising staff of the school, namely, Bagdoba Primary School. The school was recognised on the 7th day of November, 1983. However, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were not granted any appointment in terms of the Rule 3D of the rules framed under Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as ''the 1930 Act" for the brevity). It is the case of the writ petitioners that the respondent No. 5 made inspection lime to time and the last inspection report is dated 20th August, 1975. The respondent No. 5, the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Tehatia, II Circle, admitted that the petitioner No. 3 was an organising teacher. That report is annexed as Annexure 'A' to the writ application. The writ petitioners have claimed appointment as organising staff on the basis of the judgment of this Court passed in F.M.A.T. No. 690 of 1982, a judgment of an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The detailed particulars have been mentioned in the different paragraphs of this writ application. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in spite of the direction to this effect by the order dated 23.4.85 passed by B. P. Banerjee, J.
(2.) Nobody appears for the state-respondents to oppose the maller. Though it is an old matter hanging in the list, being the matter of 1985. Applying the doctrine of non-traverse, since no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, the contentions as made in the writ application are to deemed as actual state of affairs by this Court in adjudicating the matter. Reliance on the judgment to apply the doctrine of non-traverse is made to the case of Controller of Court of Ward, Kolhtr & Anr. v. G.N. Gharpade reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Co page 627, and also on a decision passed by Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J., in case of Gobinda Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal reported 1989 (2) Cal LT (HC) 63. Hence, on the pleadings of the case, applying the said doctrine, 1 have to adjudicate the matter. Earlier under Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1930', there was a provision under Rule 3D for absorption of the organising staff of the privately managed school as and when such school is recognised. Such provision was deleted long ago by incorporating a new provision under the same Rule 3D providing job to the "died-in-harness" category candidates. At the present moment under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, and the rule made thereto being the Rule of the year 1991, there is no such provision for according approval of the appointment of the organising staff. However, this matter came up for adjudication in a case West Bengal Board of Secondary Education v. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 1997 (1) CLJ page 165, whereby and where under the Division Bench of this Court held in Paragraph 260 as follows:- "260. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in view of our findings aforementioned in cases where schools had been recognised prior to coming into force of New Rule 3D, the organiser teachers had derived a right to be considered for appointment, and, thus, they having acquired such a right were entitled to be considered in terms of the circular letters existing at the relevant time and as such writ petitioners, thus, had been deprived of their right for a long time, the respective District Primary School Councils are hereby directed to consider those cases and consider their cases for appointment in terms of Old Rule 3D and the circulars existing at the relevant point of time and if they were suitably qualified therefor. If in any such case interview has already been held, appointment may be made on the basis of such interview.''
(3.) In terms of the Division Bench Judgment which is binding to me the writ petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are, accordingly, entitled to the same benefit when no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed controverting that the petitioners are not the organising staff and also controverting that the school was not recognised with effect from 7th November, 1983. Accordingly, the concerned authorities are directed to take steps on the basis of the fact that the writ petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 have accrued a right to have consideration for appointment in the school in question which was organised by them and, subsequently, recognised. The Primary Schools Council is hereby directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners for appointment in terms of the Old Rule 3D of the Circular existing at the relevant point of time and if they are suitably qualified, therefor, they should be given appointment within a month from this date.;