JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA,J. - (1.) The propriety of that part of the order by which the District Inspector of School, Secondary Education, Kolkata refused to regularise the service of the petitioner in the vacancy in the language group appearing at page 34 of this writ petition is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner.
(2.) Let me now consider as to how far the said District Inspector of School, Secondary Education, Kolkata was justified in refusing to regularise the service of the petitioner in the available sanctioned vacancy in the language group in the facts of the instant case.
(3.) Admittedly there are five sanctioned posts in the language group in the school viz.Sri Balkrishna Vithalnath Vidyalaya. Out of those five sanctioned posts three approved teachers are working there. There are two vacancies in such sanctioned post in the language group. The petitioner, who was appointed in the said school on temporary basis now claims his placement in one of such vacancies in the language group. He is a Master degree holder. His educational qualification is M.A. in English, B.Ed. Since the vacant posts are earmarked for the pass degree holders, the District Inspector of School refused to place the petitioner in any of such vacancies as he is a Master degree holder. In support of such conclusion the DI of school has referred to two government orders viz. G.O.No.670-Edn(B)dt.4-9-1998 and G.O.No.1691-Edn(S) dated 20th September, 2001.;