Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) India loves dynasties. So does the world. In her own small way, the writ petitioner in this case has tried to perpetuate a dynasty of service unfortunately in a manner which is not permitted by law.
(2.) Since the facts of the case stand admitted and are apparent from the records, I have not called for affidavits.
(3.) The writ petitioner is the daughter in law of a man whose mother used to be an unapproved organizing staff of a Madrasah since August 29, 1985. In her lifetime, service of this matriarch, whose name is Suko Bibi, was never approved or regularized. She made several representations and ultimately instituted a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was registered as W.P. No.22023 (W) of 2007, that is to say, 22 years after she was allegedly appointed, seeking approval of her services. She did not proceed with it, the present writ petitioner says out of ill-health, but admittedly she abandoned her claim to approval of her services, with the dismissal of the writ petition. The writ petitioner in the present case claims that before death, Suko Bibi approached the respondent no. 3, with a request to appoint the present writ petitioner in her place and thus vacated her office. The writ petitioner claims that Suko Bibi waived her right to approval of her service in favour of the writ petitioner. In support of her claim, she cites the fact that the respondent no. 3 took a resolution on April 2, 2007to appoint the petitioner in the vacant and allegedly sanctioned post of the Matron of the Respondent No.4 Madrasah. The petitioner claims to have assumed office on April 11, 2007 and to have been working there till date. She has moved this court, now, complaining that neither her appointment has been approved nor she has received any remuneration for her services. She has sought mandatory reliefs inter alia for approval of her service and for payment of salary and what she says is due to her.;