Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. - (1.)The case of the writ petitioners are that they have been serving in Kakali Primary School as Assistant Teachers since 2nd Jan., 1976 and 21st July, 1976 respectively and they all along signed in the teacher's attendance register. The Managing Committee by a resolution dated 21st Aug., 1977 duly passed a resolution appointing them as Assistant Teachers on temporary basis and their names were also recommended for approval. They have been paid their remunerations by the Managing Committee of the said school. The Chairman, Calcutta District Primary School Council heard the petitioners and came to the finding that the writ petitioners have no substantive right to get appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers since the Managing Committee had no authority to appoint them and the resolution adopted by the Managing Committee to that effect was not valid. The learned Advocate for the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Calcutta, has referred to the Circular issued by the Government of West Bengal being No. 1614/Edn. (P) dated Calcutta the 8th Nov., 1974. Clause (3) of the said Circular provides as follows:-
"(3). In the circumstances in partial modification to the G.O. No. 1472/Edn. (P) dated 20.7.1972, the Governor is pleased to order that the Advisory Committee of each Municipal Area (including Calcutta) constituted by the Government be empowered to prepare panels of candidates for appointment of teachers (both trained and untrained) in recognised primary and junior basic schools in urban areas. Rules and Orders for preparation of panels under the District School Board will apply mutatis mutandis in this case. The cases of unapproved teachers now working (appointed prior to 1.4.1974) in aided primary and junior basic schools may be considered at the time of preparation of panels. The Managing Committees of recognised (aided) primary and junior basic schools shall appoint teachers from out of the approved panels for respective Municipal Areas after the names of candidates are formally communicated by the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.) to the schools concerned."

(2.)He submits that in view of Clause (3) of the said Circular, the petitioners cannot claim regularisation of appointment. The said clause specifically provides that the preparation of panel should be made for the purpose of appointment of the teachers. The learned Advocate for the Chairman, District Primary School Council, however, has fairly suggested that at the time of preparation of panel the names of the petitioners will be considered and their long service career will also be taken into account and they will be given preference and their age will not be taken as a bar. In my view, the stand taken by the learned Advocate for the respondent Chairman, District Primary School Council appears to be fair. In that view of the matter, it is directed that at the time of preparation of panel, the names of the petitioners will be taken into account and their long service experience will also be considered and if necessary, preference will be given in their favour.
(3.)Till such decision as directed above, is made by the concerned respondent, parties are directed to maintain status quo as of today.
;