ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The respondent approached the learned single Judge for regularization of his appointment in Amdol High School, where he was claiming to be an Assistant Teacher. According to him, he was an organizing staff of the concerned School, engaged prior to its recognition. He claims to be working in the School since 1997 on the strength of a letter of appointment issued by the Secretary on September 04, 1997. The School was a Class-IV Junior High School, recognized in 1968 that got upgradation with effect from May 01, 2000. He claims that he was an English Teacher in the upgraded Section. He filed a writ petition in 2001, being W.P. 8987 (W) of 2001. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated June 15, 2005, inter alia, asking for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the School Service Commission from filling up of the said post as also for his regularization as an organizing staff. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by making a specific observation to the following extent : "at the same time, on the strength of annexure 'p-3' above, J am of the view that the position of the petitioner's, as an organizing teacher, at the material point of time cannot be fully established." The learned Judge directed the District Inspector of Schools to conduct a fresh enquiry to the said fact. Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools conducted an investigation and ultimately rejected the prayer for regularization. He filed his second writ petition, being W.P. 819 (W) of 2008. The learned single Judge disposed of the same vide judgment and order dated December 24, 2010. The learned Judge observed that the District Inspector of Schools should immediately approve his appointment and such approval must be given within four weeks from the date of communication of the said order. His Lordship also observed "the petitioner would be entitled to receive salary and other benefits month by month without any interruption."
(2.) Being aggrieved, the State preferred the instant appeal along with the application for condonatioin of delay, which we heard on February 01 and February 03, 2012 at length.
(3.) Mr. Subhabrata Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the State/appellants contended before us that the learned single Judge, in the first writ petition, was satisfied about his claim as to whether he was an organizing staff. The learned single Judge directed investigation to be carried out by the District Inspector of Schools. Accordingly, the District Inspector verified the records and ultimately came to the conclusion that he was entitled to the benefit. Hence, the learned Judge could have allowed the second writ petition that too, by issuing a mandatory order directing the State to approve appointment and extend financial benefit being salary and other ancillary benefit.;