Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) In this writ application the petitioners have, Inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw the Memo dated 10.9.96 and to recognise the Mendalhat Primary School, at well as approve the appointment of the petitioners as organiser teachers in the said School.
(2.) The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in Mendalhat Primary School. The said School is not a recognised one. The petitioners, however, claimed themselves to be organiser teachers. A writ application was filed before this Court by Md. Abdul Kalam and Others for grant of recognition of the School being C.O. No. 6243(W) of 1995 and by an order dated 5th May, 1995 the said wilt application was disposed of with the following directions:- "Liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply in the prescribed form to the Ad-hoc Committee, District Primary School Council, North 24 Parganes, through the respondent No. 2. The Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee, District Primary School Council, North 24-Parganas for recognition of the concerned School arid the said committee shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of 16 (sixteen) weeks from the date of communication of this order. Thia writ petition is disposed of accordingly." Pursuant to the said order applications in prescribed form has been filed but the same had been rejected in terms of an order dated 10.9.96 passed by the Chairman, North 24-Parganas, District Primary School Council. The said order has been questioned, Inter alia, on the ground that the concerned authority has not taken into consideration the order passed by this Court in the earlier application. A bare perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 'F' to the writ application would clearly go to show that the same has been passed in accordance with law. It has been pointed out that Rule 3(D) as was existing in Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Rules was substituted in the year 1980 and the claim of the persons similarly situated had been considered by a Division Bench in Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee v. Jitendra Nath Chatterjee reported in 95 CWN 754. The petitioners thus do not have any existing legal right after substitution of Rule 3(D) aforementioned Furthermore, Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930 has been repealed and replaced by the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973. The State in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 106 of 1973 Act framed Rules in the year 1991 known as Recruitment and Leave Rules. Question as to whether despite come Into force 1973 Act, and 1991 Rules, the organiser teachers have any right for appointment or not came up for consideration before this Court in West Bengal Board of Secondary (Sic for Primary) Education v. State of West Bengal, 1997(1) CLJ 165. The submission was made therein that as Rule 3(D) was made byway of scheme, the organiser teachers form a different class was held to be not tenable. In Debasis Dutta v. State of West Bengal reported in 1998(2) CLJ 1, a Special Bench of this Court has clearly held that appointment of a teacher must be made in terms of the Statutory Rules. Similar view bat been taken by a Division Bench in relation to primary teachers in Writ Petition No. 29197 (W) of 1997, Zlaul Islam v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
(3.) For the reasons aforementioned, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is a valid one and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. However, to far as question of recognition of the school is concerned, it will be open to the concerned authority to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, on the application filed by the managing committee of the School if no order has already been pasted. This application is, therefore, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.;