IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Any order passed on concession does not lay down the law and it cannot be followed as a precedent.
2. The Court should keep restrain before passing appointment orders saddling State Government with financial burden. In the instant case, a panel of 1980 was kept alive upto 2004 without realizing that by this time many more aspirants are waiting in queue.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Mathur, J. — This appeal is directed against order dated 11th June, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court whereby the Division Bench affirmed the order of learned Single Judge directing that all the 55 writ petitioners be appointed as teachers within a period of six weeks. Aggrieved against this order, the Nadia District School Council filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench affirmed the order of learned Single Judge by order dated 11th June, 2004 and hence the present appeal.

2. In order to dispose of this appeal, few facts may be recapitulated. A panel for appointment of primary teachers was prepared in 1980 for the District of Nadia in which 1965 candidates were included in the panel. Out of this panel, only 600 were trained candidates. Rule 3(d) of the Recruitment Rules provided that while preparing the panel for appointment to the post of primary teachers, preference shall be given to the trained candidates in such a manner that all additional posts sanctioned by the Government from time to time due to enhancement in roll strength in existing schools and at least 5- per cent of the normal vacancies in such schools are filled up by trained candidates only, if sufficient number of trained candidates are available. By Notification dated 26th October, 1971, the Government of West Bengal recognized the training as an additional qualification for appointment as Assistant Teacher. Then again by Notification dated 5th September, 1973, it was provided that while giving appointment out of the panel already prepared, preference should be given to the trained candidates for appointment to all the additional posts. The preparation of panel omitting to include trained candidates was challenged by Sirazul Haque Mallick and 107 other candidates in C.R. No.2522(W) of 1981. That writ petition was allowed on 17th September, 1987. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was preferred being F.M.A.T. No.159 of 1988 by the State. The order passed in the writ petition was modified by the Division Bench by its order dated 14th February 1989 directing to give appointment to the petitioners in the existing vacancies and in vacancies arising in immediate future and that appointment would not be offered to any one other than the petitioners. This order was passed on concession given by the State. This order was not complied with. Therefore, a contempt petition was filed and on 30th June, 1989 in the Contempt Petition in case of Sirazul Haque Mallick and 107 others, they were given appointment. Thereafter on 16th July, 1989, one Dibakar Pal and 87 others moved a writ petition being C.O. No.11154(W) of 1989. This writ petition was also allowed by the order dated 13th March, 1991 on the ground that the petitioners are similarly circumstanced as in the case Sirazul Haque Mallick and 107 others. Therefore, no different treatment can be given and they were also given benefit of appointment. Against this order, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench which was dismissed. Thereafter, a contempt petition was filed, in pursuance to that, an order dated 23rd June, 1999 was passed and Dibakar Pal and 87 others were given appointment.

3. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed on 2nd August, 1989. This writ petition was also allowed by order dated 17th January 2001 on the basis of the judgments in Sirazul Haque Mallick and Dibakar Pal’s cases. The petitioners in this petition, i.e., petitioner and 54 others were trained candidates. Therefore, the learned Single Judge directed appointment of these 55 persons on the same rationale as in the case of Sirazul Haque Mallick and Dibakar Pal. However, the learned Single Judge did not allow similar relief to other persons who were added as parties between 1999 and 2000. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench and an objection of delay was raised. However, the Division Bench overruled the objection of delay but decl