Sengupta, J. - (1.) By this petition the petitioner for the fourth time has approached this court with a grievance in this time for reinstatement in the service as a Temporary Teacher. Previously the writ petitioner came thrice. First attempt on part of the writ petitioner was to ask for regularisation and/or absorption in the permanent post of Assistant Teacher in the respondent- school as he has being serving as a temporary teacher since November, 1995. However, Justice N.K. Mitra (As His Lordship then was) while disposing of the first writ petition was not pleased to pass any order for absorption or regularisation of the petitioner's service. Against this judgment and order of Justice Mitra an appeal was taken out. The Appeal Court did not interfere. Justice Mitra, however, was pleased to direct the school authority to allow the petitioner to take interview along with other eligible candidates when the post was sought to be filled in on regular basis. It was ultimately done, however, according to the respondent-school authority the petitioner was not successful in the interview. On the other hand, it was the contention of the petitioner that he was not treated fairly and equitable as it was required to be done in true sense of the order of Justice Mitra. So he approached this court for second time by filing a writ petition and that writ petition was dismissed as not being pressed as it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the post in question had been filled in by another candidate through regular recruitment process. Accordingly, a fresh writ petition was filed being W.P. No. 2658 of 1999 for absorption and/or regularisation once again and also for setting aside the decision of the managing committee appointing the respondent No. 6 herein,
(2.) The last mentioned writ petition was moved before Justice Amitava Lal on 28th April, 1999 when His Lordship was pleased to pass an interim order to the effect that without prejudice to the rights in the said school but such order will not create any right till the disposal of the writ petition. Against the aforesaid interim order an appeal was preferred by the school authority. The Appeal Court, however, was pleased not to retain the said order and set aside the same and asked the learned trial Judge to decide the matter afresh.
(3.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner having felt aggrieved by the decision of the school authority not allowing to work in the school after the judgment and order of the Appeal Court. In the affidavit-in- opposition the stand of the school authority is that the petitioner was not appointed against a permanent and substantive post. It has been further contended that in breach of the directives of the Education Department the petitioner was appointed and no appointment letter was issued. However, in paragraph-9 of the affidavit-in-opposition it has been alleged "that the petitioner time and again allegedly claimed that he was appointed on temporary basis in 1995 but the petitioner being temporary staff of the school is not coming to the school for a long period. So the question of termination of service to the petitioner in view of his nature of service and long absence, does not arise at all.";