S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 1st July, 1997 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and wherunder an application filed by the appellants herein for recalling of the said court's earlier order dated 27th February was dismissed.
(2.) The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 205 were aspirants for the posts of Assistant Teachers in different Primary Schools. The appellant No. 206 is an Association. The appellants filed a writ application, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs: A. "A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their officers and men to show cause as to why the petitioners who are all trained candidates shall not be included in the panel which is to be prepared by the respondents; B. A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners who are trained candidates from the panel to be prepared as well as by forming a supplementary panel of trained candidates who have duly been enrolled in the Employment Exchange but were not called for interview as the council did not take the names of the candidates from the Employment Exchanges; C. Direction upon the respondents to cancel the panel if already made illegally by the council and approved by the authorities to make a fresh panel in accordance with law; D. A writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to produce records in original in connection with the above case before the Registrar, Appellate Side of this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing illegal Acts done by the respondents; E. Direction upon the respondents to form supplementary panel of the petitioners who are trained candidates duly enrolled in the Employment Exchange some of whom have not been called for the interview but on the other hand supper-suously invited applications by the council direct from the candidates for forming the panel in violation of notification no. 421-Edn.(P)/5B-2/77 dated 27.3.1978; F. Rule Nisi in terms of clause (A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) above; G. Injunction restraining the respondents to issue appointment letters to the untrained teachers in the existing schools and/or to give any effect to such appointment letters if already issued ignoring the petitioners who are trained candidates without forming a panel including the petitioners; H. Such other or further writ/order/direction which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper; I. Costs of and incidents to this application"
(3.) The claim of the appellants appear to be that in view of various decisions of this court as also the Supreme Court of India they, being trained teachers, their cases ought to have been considered by the Hooghly District (Primary) School Council. An ex-parte order was passed by the learned trial Judge directing the first respondent to consider the cases of the petitioners, whose cases had not been considered at the time of preparation of panel. The first respondent was further directed to prepare a Supplementary panel if the same is permitted in law as panel of Primary teachers in District of Hooghly within the time set out for that purpose.;