SHEKHAR B.SARAF,J. - (1.) The above two writ petitions are filed by two Assistant Teachers employed with Maheshwari Balika Vidyalaya. In both the writ petitions, the factual matrix is similar and, accordingly, the same are being disposed of by way of a single order.
(2.) The relevant facts leading to these writ petitions are as follows:- a) The petitioners were appointed in the school as Assistant Teachers in the year 2002 and 2000 respectively. b) The District Inspector converted the relevant sanctioned post in the school from Secondary to Higher Secondary in the year 2011 and 2009 respectively. c) Order of approval for appointment of the petitioners were issued in the year 2011 and 2009 respectively. In both these orders of appointment to permanent post, the notional benefit and the financial benefit were given from the date of conversion of that particular post. d) Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the writ petitioners that one Miss Mita Sengupta who was junior to them had got a similar benefit of permanent appointment upon the post having been sanctioned in the year 2015. Miss Mita Sengupta's order of appointment, however, was slightly different. She was given the financial benefit from the date of conversion; however, she was given the notional benefit from an earlier date, that is, the date of retirement of the earlier teacher due to which the post became vacant. e) Both the writ petitioners made representations to the concerned authority in the year 2016 which was considered by the State authorities and, accordingly, the writ petitions were filed by the writ petitioners wherein order was passed by this Court directing the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata-2 to consider their representations and pass a reasoned order. f) Subsequently, by orders dated June 7, 2017 bearing Memo no. 891/1(3)/Law and Memo no. 893/1(3)/Law, the District Inspector of Schools (SE) rejected the prayers made by the writ petitioners for granting notional benefit to the writ petitioners from the date of the post becoming vacant. g) The above two orders are under challenge in the two writ petitions.
(3.) When the writ petitions were heard, it was very evident that the rights of Miss Mita Sengupta would also be impacted and, accordingly, the petitioners were granted leave to add Miss Mita Sengupta as a party to the writ petitions. Counsel appearing on behalf of Miss Mita Sengupta has also submitted that in no proceedings, the order passed in favour of his client has ever been challenged and, accordingly, this Writ Court should issue any mandamus against the said order of approval of appointment.;