I. P. Mukerji, J. - (1.) Mr. Moitra, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioners places reliance on an unreported judgment and order passed by this Court in W.P. no. 25186 (W) of 2015 (Tapan Kumar Das & ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & ors.) decided on 2nd March, 2017, where I held that once the District Inspector of Schools had taken a decision, he did not have the power to revoke it. Law did not give him that power. If the decision had to be revoked, proper steps, in accordance with law, had to be taken by the government. Learned counsel supplemented his argument by showing me a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & ors. vs. Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar,1991 AIR(SC) 2219, where Mr. Justice Shetty observed as follows: 6. But none the less the impugned dismissal order has at least a de facto operation unless and until it is declared to be void or nullity by a competent body or Court. In Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Concil, 1956 AC 736 at p. 769 Lord Redcliffe observed: "An order even if not made in good faith is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders." 7. Apropos to this principle, Prof. Wade states: "the principle must be equally true even where the 'brand of invalidity' is plainly visible; for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the Court (see: Administrative Law 6th Ed. P. 352). Prof. Wade sums up these principles: "The truth of the matter is that the Court will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the Court may refuse to quash it because of the plaintiff's lack of standing, because he does not deserve a discretionary remedy, because he has waived his rights, or for some other legal reason. In any such case the 'void' order remains effective and is in reality valid. It follows that an order may be void for one purpose nd valid for another, and that it may be void against one person but valid against another." (Ibid p. 352)
(2.) These cases become relevant because of the decision of the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Purba Medinipur dated 14th August, 2013 signifying approval to the appointments of four Assistant Teachers of Naikundi Arya Mission Junior High School, Purba Medinipur, the writ petitioners.
(3.) These appointments were made on the basis that this school was a minority institution and that it had its own autonomy and was not under the purview of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997.;