JUDGMENT

M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.

(1) THE application is allowed. The applicant-Respondent 5 be transposed as Petitioner 6. Office will amend the cause title of the petition accordingly.

(2) SPECIAL leave granted.

(3) THESE appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 30/3/1994 rendered by the Calcutta High court disposing of a number of letters patent appeals and writ petitions. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeals are as under.

(4) IN 1983 two writ petitions were filed in the High court by the appellants herein on behalf of and at the instance of a large number of applicants seeking appointments as Assistant Teachers in different primary schools of West Bengal, being run and managed by District Primary School Boards/Councils within their respective territories. They contended that though they had the requisite educational qualifications and basic trainings for such appointments the Boards/Councils were preparing panels and giving appointments to untrained applicants and persons of their own choice in utter disregard of the rules framed and circulars issued in that behalf. A learned Single Judge of the High court allowed the writ petitions by ajudgment dated 28/9/1989 with a finding that the appointment of untrained candidates as Assistant Teachers in the primary schools was unauthorised and illegal and a direction that the respondents should appoint only trained candidates in the recognised primary schools in the different districts of the State against existing vacancies.

(5) ASSAILING the above judgment of the learned Single Judge the respondents preferred a letters patent appeal before a division bench of the High court which was disposed of on 10/5/1991 with the following directions:

"ACCORDINGLY, taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I direct the different District School Boards and the authorities concerned to take immediate steps for preparation of fresh panels in accordance with law and in terms of the rules referred to above. I further direct that all appointments against the additional posts sanctioned by the State government from time to time due to enhancement in the roll strength in the existing schools in different districts be filled up by the trained candidates only. So far as the normal vacancies existing in the schools are concerned, at least 50% must be filled up by trained candidates only. In respect of remaining 50% of such vacancies, untrained candidates should be considered along with trained candidates on some rational and reasonable principle."

(6) AGAINST the above judgment and order the appellants moved this court by filing special leave petitions which were disposed of on 30/9/1991 with the following observations and directions: "There are certain rules which relate to selection of teachers. The division bench of the High court has dealt with the manner and procedure of the selection. Taking note of the fact that there are a good number of vacancies existing and rules have been made prescribing the process to be followed, the court has laid down that 50% of the normal vacancies should be filled up by the trained teachers and all additional vacancies should go to them and the remainder of the 50% of the normal vacancies could be filled by trained and untrained teachers. In a part of its decision the division bench has indicated what actually is meant by the term rational and reasonable principle. We gather that in terms of the directions of the division bench, panels have now been drawn up. We are of the view that, if and when, the panels are under challenge it should be open to the aggrieved parties to take their definite stand one way or the other depending upon the facts of the case, but the general guidelines given by the High court do not require to be disturbed."

(7) ON a clarification sought of the above order this court made the following order on 27/4/1992:

"IF there are any pan