Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) A learned Judge of this Court by a common judgment and order dated June 11, 2010 disposed of W.P. No. 16941(W) of 2005 (Phani Bhusan Mondal & ors. v. The State of West Bengal & ors.) and W.P. No. 25065(W) of 2008 (Asad Ali & ors. v. The State of West Bengal & ors.). The operative part of the order reads as follows: "Therefore, I would partly allow the writ by directing the respondent authorities and each of them to regularise or formalise the appointment of the writ petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of the order. As there is no evidence from the report of the State Inspection Team about the employment of writ petitioner Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8, writ application by them is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs."
(2.) The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invoked by the writ petitioners voicing a grievance that although the relevant school had been upgraded from a junior high school (Classes V to VIII) to a high school (Classes IX and X) upon recognition granted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereafter the Board), their services on such upgradation had not been regularized by grant of approval. It was claimed by the writ petitioners that they comprised the teaching and non-teaching staff of the unrecognised unit (Classes IX and X) of the school and were present at the school premises on the occasion of inspection by the District Level Inspection Team (hereafter the D.L.I.T.). A report was prepared by the D.L.I.T., which endorsed that the writ petitioners were physically present on the date of inspection, and consideration of the same by the Board led to such upgradation.
(3.) In granting relief to the writ petitioners 1, 2, 3 and 6 (Phani Bhusan Mondal, Asad Ali, Jayanta Sarkar and Mukti Roy), the learned Judge appears to have considered the said report of the D.L.I.T. which found the said petitioners to have been bona fide employed in the school for quite some time before inspection. In the absence of any affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State dealing with the writ petitions, a finding of fact was returned that no case of such writ petitioners having been illegally or irregularly appointed by the managing committee of the school had been set up. This is perceived by us to be the reason that persuaded the learned Judge not to follow decisions of Division Benches of this Court (Manindra Nath Sinha & ors. v. State of West Bengal & ors., 2006 4 CalHN 513), (State of West Bengal v. Smritikana Maity, 2008 1 CalHN 582), (Headmistress, Garifa Arati Academy for Girls v. Gita Banik, 2008 1 CalLJ 453 ) and (State of West Bengal & ors. v. Gopal Singh & ors., 2008 1 WbLR 229 (Cal) ) and to proceed to consider the claim of the writ petitioners 1, 2, 3 and 6 based on a Government order bearing no. 895-Edn (s)/4A-53/87 dated September 30, 1992. According to the learned Judge, the said order dated September 30, 1992 had not been placed before the Division Benches that had decided Gita Banik and Gopal Singh and resting on the ratio of the decision (Sri Bhudev Biswas v. State of West Bengal & ors., 2006 2 CalLT 231) holding that teachers who were found employed during inspection of a school would be recognized as organizer teachers, relief followed in favour of the said four petitioners. However, the names of the other writ petitioners not having found place in the D.L.I.T. report their claims were declined by the learned Judge.;