Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a Bio-Science teacher of a Junior High Madrasah and he was given appointment vide order dated 25.2.1984 passed by the school authority with effect from 1.3.1984. At the time of regularisation of service of the petitioner, the authority concerned refused the same. Several proceedings were initiated before the writ court which are not to be reiterated because of the reason that the main attack on the writ petitioner is the office order passed by the Director of School Education on 10.2.1998 following the order or orders of the High Court. The ground for rejection of regularisation, as I find from the office order, is that the petitioner was not sufficiently qualified on 1.3.1984 nor any prior permission was taken for the purpose of giving an appointment and also for regularisation in respect of such appointment. So far as the question of prior permission is concerned, there was no such rule available for the Director of School Education in the year 1984. Therefore, such point is nonest in the eye of law. So far as the regularisation part is concerned, the same has been sought for and was refused which is the very cause of action for the purpose of passing such departmental order. Therefore, it can also be said that such point is also nonest in the eye of law at the present moment. Therefore, the only question remains as to whether the petitioner was sufficiently qualified at the time of giving appointment or not.
(2.) No one has come forward on behalf of the State-respondent either by filing affidavit or for the purpose of taking such defence. On the other hand, from a Memorandum dated 13.9.1983 issued by the appropriate authority of the Education Department under the order of the Governor, the basic scale for under- graduate teachers having I.A., I.Sc., I.Com, B.A. Part-I, B.Sc. Part-I and B.Com Part-I as their qualifications of the Secondary Schools (Junior, High and Higher Secondary) including Junior/High Madrasah was fixed. Such Memorandum definitely creates necessary implication that the teachers less than the graduate qualification can be taken in such type of institution. Therefore, the point as has been taken by the Director of School Education is that the petitioner being under qualified or not properly qualified cannot stand in the eye of law. Factually, the petitioner had already given examination prior to the appointment and the result was published either in the month of April or May, 1984. Therefore, the service which is continuing from 1.3.1984 till this date as also admitted by the School authority cannot be ignored from giving effect of regularisation as it was prevailing at the relevant point of time. Thus, the order of the Director of School Education cannot be sustained. Therefore, such order dated 10.2.1998 is set aside. The concerned Dist. Inspector of Schools being the appropriate authority for the purpose of giving approval of appointment is hereby directed to take steps for approval from the date of appointment within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.
(3.) Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.;