Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) This is a very disturbing to note, when an issue has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court on and again, against one of which appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court which also was dismissed, instead of following the same this Court deals with such settled issue sometimes afresh and in doing so unprecedently is attempting to unsettle the settled issue, as again happened in this case, very reluctantly we are discharging our obligations in disposing of this appeal following the settle law on the issue with the hope that instead of reopening Pandoras box there will be full stop disallowing increase in the scope of litigation on the settled issue.
(2.) The subject Institution, namely, Daguagandhi Smriti Junior High School has a long drawn history of litigation since its Managing Committee in one hand was trying for its recognition to achieve financial aid from the State and, on the other hand, the respondents/writ petitioners claiming themselves organizing teachers have been trying to establish their right of getting appointment through Court proceedings. Therefore, the germane of the matter as available on record was since the month of November, 1991.
(3.) Mr. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that either in the old Act of the year 1963 or even after enactment of the School Service Commission Act, 1997 the concept of organizing teacher was nowhere. Submitted, while the School Service Commission Act, 1997 came into force w.e.f. 1st November, 1997 without being repugnant to other provisions working in the field then the provision and procedure for selection, appointment and approval are to be followed as provided therein. He further submitted that if any teaching or non-teaching staff are appointed de hors the Rule then they would have no status whether they would have been working in the institution prior to or after recognition by the Government, because, any such organizing teaching or non-teaching staff had no approved status for being appointed unless they are appointed through regular selection process against the vacancy. He, accordingly relied upon the following cases:- 1) F.M.A 1425 of 2003 reported in [Manindra Nath Sinha and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others, 2006 2 CalLJ 489] [order of Supreme Court dated 4th December, 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 7897 of 2010]. 2) State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Smritikana Maity & Others,2008 1 CLH(Cal) 316. 3) State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Gopal Singh & Others, 2008 1 WBLR 229 (Cal). 4) Aloke Jyoti Maitra Vs. the State of West Bengal & Ors., 2004 2 CalLJ 553 - Single Bench decision.;