Further, the resolution of the Managing Committee in respect of the proposed appointment was number produced.
That order of learned Single Judge was challenged by the present appellants before the Division Bench.
Though it was pointed out by the present appellants that in view of the findings recorded by the Board, the question of regularization does number arise, the High Court was of the view that the said order of the Board was the subject matter of challenge and the order was set aside subject to decision in the writ petition.
The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 22nd November, 1999.
No reason was indicated as to why the order of the Board was being set aside.
It was also numbered that the school was recognized with effect from 1.1.1974 and several companyditions were stipulated.
The factual background in a nutshell is as under Respondent No.
C.O. 11932 W of 1989 before the Calcutta High Court.
The findings recorded by the Board in this regard were set aside without indicating any reason by the learned Single Judge.
All appointments to the post of primary teachers were to be made from the panel prepared by the District Primary School Council duly approved by the Director of School Education, West Bengal.
The writ petitioner had challenged the companyrectness of the Boards view regarding manipulation of the order of appointment.
The Rules governing the field clearly provide that the appointing authority is the Board.
1 writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner has rendered service for nearly quarter of a century without any salary.
Per companytra, learned companynsel for respondent No.
In the list of approved teachers, name of the writ petitioner did number find place.
The Division Bench did number go into that question at all and proceeded on other premises which have also numberrelevance.
The report of the Board was totally brushed aside and a direction was given to the Chairman, District Primary School Council to re consider the case in the light of the fact that she was working for a long time and to regularize her appointment in the said post within a stipulated time, after giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of hearing and after passing a reasoned order.
One of these companyditions stipulated was that numberadditional teacher was to be appointed or suspended from service without the prior approval of the Directorate of Education.
After having accepted the position that without approval the appointment cannot be made, the question of regularization does number arise, the Division Bench should number have dismissed the appeal.
After examining various documents and taking into account the statements of the writ petitioner and the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School it was numbered that the document claimed to be the original appointment letter companytained several over writings and appeared to be a manipulated and fabricated document.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The State of West Bengal and its functionaries have challenged the companyrectness of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court affirming the judgment passed by learned Single Judge.
1 hereafter referred to as the writ petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing No.
In the so called letter of appointment also, there was numberreference to any resolution of the Managing Committee for making the appointment.
While the writ petition was pending, interim orders were passed directing the West Bengal Board of Primary Education in short the Board to companysider whether the claim of the writ petitioner that she was appointed by the Managing Committee of the School i.e. Tangra Prathamik Vidyatan, Calcutta with effect from 2.1.1976, was companyrect.
