Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. - (1.) This is the sixth writ petition filed by the writ petitioner claiming therein that he is an organising teacher and should be regularised and/or given appointment by the respondent authorities. On earlier occasion direction for consideration was issued and pursuant to such direction the case of the petitioner was considered and the impugned order refusing absorption of the petitioner was passed which is also challenged by the petitioner.
(2.) However, the order impugned dated 11th May, 2009 under Memo No.100/1(4)-LC was passed by the Director of School Education. The Director of School Education very carefully considered the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner and decided the 2 issues as follows:- "(1) That the school was established as organising school in the year 1973. The petitioner was issued appointment letter as assistant teacher in the year 1993. Hence he should not be termed as organizer teacher even if it is presumed that he allegedly worked for the school for the period 1993-98. He may be termed as teacher-in-position at that time. (2) That even if the petitioner had been appointed in the school and worked as an teacher-in- position from 1993, he could not claim approval of organising committee and allegedly obstructed by the un recognised organising committee. The school Education Directorate had nothing to do in such a case in accordance with law. He ought to have to go the Police Station. (3) That the spot enquiry/inspection as insisted by the Learned Advocate of the petitioner would do nothing. Even if it is revealed that he was obstructed in the year 1998, while working as a History teacher in an unrecognized school, the Director of School Education, West Bengal could do nothing in accordance with law at present. (4) That as per prevalent executive instruction the names which were included in the District Level Inspection Team report should only be considered for approval of appointment. The petitioner was debarred, as his own claim to attend the unrecognized school from the year 1998. Hence he was not at organizer teacher//teacher-in-position on 12-04-2000. (5) That at the time of affirmation of W.P. No.3802(W) of 2008, the petitioner was about 39 years old. He had ample scope to apply for Assistant teacher before selection committee/Regional School Service Commission after 1998, to make justice to his merit through competition. (6) That the resultant vacancy to be caused due to retirement of Mr. Bhajahari Bera should be filled up by a person recommended by the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission in terms of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act. (7) That although the Government in the School Education Department from time to time issued various circulars permitting regularisation of the organising staff consequent upon first recognition of a school, all such circulars have been repeatedly in a sustained manner declared as illegal by successive Division bench of the 4 Hon'ble High Court. Unless and until the executive circulars have the support of the statutory rule those circulars cannot give any special right to the claimant who is otherwise not entitled to claim such right under the statute. (8) That when a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection. (9) That it is true that the state had recognised a number of people who were appointed by an organising managing committee and whose names were included in the DLIT report, although such appointments were illegal and in clear violation of the Rules, but such recognition/regularization being contrary to law cannot be treated as precedent." As per the considered view of the Director of School 5 Education the petitioner is not at all an organising teacher and at present there is no scope for absorbing and/or regularising in view of the present position of law which are attracted in such type of cases.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that a spot inspection could be made. According to her the writ petitioner is entitled to get absorption and/or regularisation for the post as assistant teacher in the school.;