Banerjee, J.:— These three appeals relate to identical fact and as such are disposed of by this common judgement.

2. One Gita Banik claimed to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Garifa Arati Academy for Girls’. She filed a writ petition being W.P No. 12430(W) of 1999, inter alia, praying for her regularisation in the school in the post fell vacant due to the death of one Smt. Chaya Banerjee on May 29, 1998. On August 2, 1999 her writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge directing the District Inspector of School to takesteps for regularisation and/or absorption of Gita in place and stead of Chaya. Contempt application was moved wherein Rule of Contempt was issued as against the District Inspector of School for non-consideration of her prayer despite order of the learned Single Judge. Under the threat of contempt she was regularised by the District Inspector on November 16, 2000, State preferred an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. Application for condonation was dismissed by the Division Bench by an order dated July 9, 2001. Second writ petition was filed by Gita being W.P No. 4414(W) of 2002 for implementation of the said order, inter alia, for a direction upon the Headmistress to allow her to join the school. The said application was heard and disposed of by another learned Judge by order dated May 8, 2002 wherein His Lordship made caustic observation against the Headmistress. The Headmistress also filed an appeal being M.A.T No. 1440 of 2002 against the order dated May 8, 2002. The Headmistress also filed an application (C.A.N No. 2500 of 2002) for recall of the original order dated August 2, 1999 which was rejected by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated July 19, 2002. The Headmistress filed another appeal being M.A.T No. 2419 of 2002. The Headmistress also filed a third appeal being M.A.T No. 2485 of 2002 renumbered as F.M.A No. 1396 of 2007 against the original order dated August 2, 1999 directing regularisation of Gita. All the three appeals were heard by us on the above mentioned dates. Mr. Bidyut Kiran Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeals contended that the original application being W.P No. 12430(W) of 1999 was never served upon the Headmistress. The Headmistress did not appear before His Lordship although a Vokalatnama was filed purportedly bearing her signature. According to the appellant Gita was never appointed in the school. She never worked in the said school. Hence, she could not have been regularised as a regular teacher of the concerned school. The District Inspector under the threat of contempt had to regularise her appointment. The Headmistress upon coming to know of the said order filed an application for recall before the said learned Judge. The learned Judge verified the signature of the appellant and found the same was not similar to the one appearing in the Vokalatnama, even then His Lordship dismissed the application by judgment and order dated May 8, 2002 which gave rise to the third appeal.

3. Pertinent to mention, during the pendency of these appeals the school was derecognised by the Board and the approved teachers of the concerned school were directed to be absorbed in the vacancies in other recognised schools. The appellant was also absorbed in another-school. The Board's order for derecognition as communicated to the Administrator of the concerned school vide letter dated April 26, 2006 was handed over to us by Mr. Mukherjee in course of hearing.

4. Mr. Moloy Bose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Gita, while opposing the appeals contended that these appeals could not be proceeded with as the appellant lost interest in the concerned school and she was not entitled to proceed with these appeals as Headmistress of the concerned unrecognised school. Mr. Bose further contended that the appellant was subsequently engaged in another school as Headmistress and as such she had no locus standi to maintain these appeals any more. Mr. Bose further contended that the right, if any, of the appellant did not subsist after her appointment in another school. Since the right did not subsist any more the questions raised in these appeals were no more available to the appellant to urge in these appeals. According to Mr. Bose these appeals as on the date of hearing were infructuous and no relief could be given to the appellant.

5. On merits Mr. Bose contended that rightly or wrongly the District Inspector approved the appointment of Gita. The same was not challenged by anyone including the appellant. Without any challenge being thrown to such approval appellant was not entitled to question the validity of the orders impugned in these three appeals.

6. Mr. Bose further contended that appellant having personal animosity as against Gita was bent upon to nullify her appointment although on same footing when another teacher Smt. Swapna Saha was regularised the appellant did not raise any objection.

7. To decide on the issue let us first dispose of the objection of Mr. Bose on the maintainability of the appeal, Gita filed the writ petition for her regularisation at a time when the appellant was very much the Headmistress of the concerned school. It was the specific allegation of the appellant that she was not served with a notice of the said application. It was also her case that the Vokalatnama was never signed by her. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Judge while considering the application for recall it appears that the learned Advocate who had appeared for the Secretary and the Headmistress before His Lordship explained the situation under which he got instruction to appear on behalf of the said respondents. According to Mr. Sur the learned Advocate, he was handed over the Vokalatnama by the then Secretary of the school duly signed by him and the Headmistress. Hence, on good faith he accepted such engagement and appeared on being instructed by the then Secretary.

8. On persual of the three orders impugned herein it would appear that the comments made with regard to the conduct of the appellant are ex facie apparent, at least from the order passed by another learned Judge in the second writ petition directing the appellant to allow Gita to join the school. Hence, appellant was entitled to question such observations. Similarly to nullify those observations the appellant was entitled to proceed with the other two appeals, one against the original order and the other against the order of dismissal of her application for recall. Hence, we do not find any reason why the appellant would no more be entitled to proceed with her appeals.

9. The matter can be looked into from another angle. When the application for recall was made she was very much Headmistress of the concerned school. When the appeals were filed she was also the Headmistress of the said school. Hence, on the day of preferring of the appeals she had locus standi to maintain the said appeals. The facts of this case, in our view, do not debar her to proceed with her appeals once filed when she was admittedly having the management and control of the said school as Headmistress.

10. We also examine such contention from another angle. The writ Court being a Court of equity has the wide discretion to examine any action on the part of the public authorities to find out whether there had been any violation of the principles laid down in our Constitution, specially the principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the appellant was entitled to a notice in the writ petition filed by Gita. She complained that she was not given any notice. She also complained that she was misrepresented before His Lordship as she did not instruct Mr. Sur to appear on her behalf. This question, in our view, are still available for judicial review in appeals being an extension of the writ proceeding. Hence, these appeals, in our view, are still maintainable and available to us for adjudication.

11. There are disputed questions with regard to the service of notice, appearance of Mr. Sur on behalf of the appellant, services rendered by Gita in the school before recognition. We, however, feel that these disputed questions can be avoided to decide on the principal issue raised herein. Assuming Gita served the concerned school was she entitled to be regularised on the facts brought by her? On our careful examination we safely observe that the answer would be “no”.

12. Let us summerise the facts asstated by Gita in her writ petition being W.P No. 1440 of 2002 appearing at pages 2 to 23 of the Paper Book.

13. Garifa Arati Academy for Girls' was established in 1971. The school was initially recognised upto primary level with effect from January 1, 1974 and upto Class-VIII with, effect from January 1, 1979. The school subsequently applied for its upgradation upto Class - X. The school was inspected on December 20, 1981 and April 11, 1983. She was appointed in the school by the then Secretary on August 26, 1982 and she had joined the school on September 1, 1982 and since then she was serving the school. Her name duly appeared in the list of teaching staff at the time of inspection by the Assistant Inspector of School on April 11, 1983 and December 27, 1991. Altogether 14 sanctioned posts were filled up by approving the teaching staff as per seniority. On May 29, 1998 one post fell vacant due to death of Smt. Chaya Banerjee, Gita applied for her regularisation in such vacant post on July 2, 1998. Her prayer was directed to be considered by this Court in W.P No. 12430(W) of 1999. She was ultimately approved after a contempt proceeding was filed. By this time Smt. Swapan Saha was regularised ignoring her case. She thus prayed for a direction upon the Headmistress to allow her to sign the attendance register along with other regularised teaching and non-teaching staff.

14. If we give credence to what had been said by Gita in her petition as referred to above we would find that she was not engaged following any regular recruitment process. It was also not her case that she was working in the unrecognised upgraded section from the day of its inception. She claimed that her name duly appeared in the original inspection report. On perusal of our record we find that on September 16, 2002 the original records were produced by the learned Government Pleader before the Division Bench when it was found that the original inspection report did not tally with the copy so relied upon by Gita. We, however, do not wish to take note of such disputed action. From the facts as stated by Gita we find that as of date there is no law which could permit the State to regularise her appointment. By the original order the learned Single Judge directed consideration of her case. The learned Judge observed “in that view of the matter I direct the DI (SE), 24-Parganas (North) to take steps in accordance with law for regularisation and absorption and/or approval of the petitioner's services in place and stead of the aforesaid deceased teacher”. Even if this order is held to be valid the District Inspector was entitled to consider her prayer in accordance with law. The District Inspector allowed her prayer possibly under the threat of contempt. Even if we take it that the District Inspector did approve her appointment and the same was not challenged by any one such order without having any support of law is invalid in the eye of law. The issue was gone into by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Alokejyoti Mitra v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2004 Volume 1 Calcutta High Court Notes, Page 297. The Single Bench observed that in view of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 hereinafter referred to as the “said Act of 1997”) coming into force in November, 1997 no teacher could be appointed in any aided school without being recommended by the School Service Commission. Such view was accepted by the Division Bench in the case of Manindra Nath Sinha v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2006 Volume-II Calcutta Law Journal, Page 489. The identical view was also taken by two other Division Benches in M.A.T No. 1413 of 2004, State of West Bengal v. Goutam Bandopadhyay, dated June 26, 2007 in which one of us (Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.) was a party as well as in a latest decision in F.M.A No. 94 of 2006 dated September 14, 2007 in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Smritikana Maity

15. Regularisation of the teaching and non-teaching staff in unrecognised institutions later on recognised by the State through Board is claimed on the basis of diverse circulars issued from time to time by the State through the Executives. In the 1995 circular the State as a policy decision decided to regularise those unapproved staff as per the sanctioned strength in the unrecognised schools who had been permitted to send up students in Madhyamik Examination upto 1978. In the circular dated September 30, 1992 issued by the Secretary, State of West Bengal decided to regularise teaching and non-teaching staff of the unrecognised institutions or unrecognised section of the recognised institutions provided there names were recommended in the final inspection report for recognition/upgradation subject to their eligibility, qualification and age on the date when they assumed office. These circulars were no more relevant after the said Act of 1997 came into force.

16. “Organiser teacher” is not defined in any statute. Organiser teachers mean, in our view, the teachers who were serving the unrecognised school or the unrecognised section as the case may be, from the day of its insception. If any teacher joined the unrecognised section subsequent to its establishment those teachers can at best be called as “teacher in position” and they do not have any right even to claim regularisation on the basis of the said circulars.

17. We have considered the Division Bench decisions referred to above. We do not found any reason of disagreement on that score. Even we take into account the facts stated by Gita and her contention referred to above, we do not find any scope to grant approval to her appointment on the basis of the order of the District Inspector or otherwise.

18. The school got de-recognised subsequently. The dismissal of these appeals would thus automatically entitle Gita to get her accommodated in any other recognised school in any vacant post. Such vacant post is liable to be filled up only through the School Service Commission in terms of the provisions of the said Act of 1997. The said Act of 1997 provides for an open competition between the eligible candidates who chose to apply for the post being invited by an advertisement to that effect. Such process was recognised by the Apex Court in the case of Excise Superintendent, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216. The mandate of the statute would be frustrated if we allow the order of the District Inspector to remain.

19. We are of the view that on the facts brought before this Court by Gita she was not entitled to be considered for regularisation and the original order dated August 2, 1999 is liable to be set aside.

20. If the original order goes the other two orders impugned herein being consequential thereto are also liable to be set aside.

21. The appeals thus succeed. The order dated August 2, 1999 passed in W.P No. 12430(W) of 1999, the order dated May 8, 2002 passed in W.P No. 4414(W) of 2002 and the order dated July 19, 2002 passed in an application for recall made by the appellant being C.A.N No. 2500 of 2002 in W.P No. 12430(W) of 1999 are set aside.

22. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

23. There would be, however, no order as costs.

24. There would be stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of four weeks after long puja vacation.

25. Urgent xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for. Mukherjee, J.: I agree.

26. S.B