(1.) THE four petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Paschim Medinipur dated August 5, 2004 that appointments given to them by the School Committee of Bhuta D.A.V. High School, P.O. Bhuta, District Paschim Medinipur School not be approved, since the School committee appointed them as teachers in the school without following the recruitment rules. That the four petitioners were appointed by the School committee of the School on August 16, 1999, January 3, 2000, November 8, 2002 and November 11, 2002 respectively is not disputed.

(2.) IN exercise of powers conferred by the provisions in Section 45 of the West Rengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 the State government made the Management of Recognized Non-Government institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969. While Rule 28 thereof provided that subject to the provisions in any grant in aid scheme or pay revision scheme or any order or direction or guidelines issued by the State Government or the director in connection therewith and in force for the time being, the committee of an aided institution would possess the power, inter alia, to appoint the members of teaching and non-teaching staff in the institution, the provisions in Rule 33 provided that nothing contained in those rules would affected the power of the State Government to frame, on the application of any institution or class of institutions to which the provisions of Article 26 or article 30 of the Constitution of India might apply, further or other rules for the composition, powers, functions of the managing committee or committees of such institution or class of institutions.

(3.) IN exercise of powers conferred by that Rule 33 of the 1969 rules the State Government made the "special Rules" for the management of secondary Schools established and run by Arya Samaj and/or Gurukul vidyalaya Trust, under the aegis of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of the State (Representative Body of Arya Samajes in the State), and those rules, notified by Notification No. 404-Edn. (S) dated March 19,1973, were applicable to the institute in which the four petitioners were appointed. In terms of provisions in Rule 7 of those special rules the school committee was empowered to appoint the petitioners observing the rules laid down by the state Government for the purpose, since the appointments were made to posts, salaries including allowances of which were to be paid wholly out of government grants.

(4.) THUS, the principal question that arises in the case is whether the government laid down any rules which the institute was required to observe while appointing the petitioners. Needless to say that in the absence of any rules laid down by the Government, the institute was not to observe any order or procedure issued by any other authority. For paying salaries and allowances to the petitioners the Government did not release grants on the ground that the appointments were not approved by the District Inspector of schools. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners moved this Court by filing W. P. No. 2792 (W) of 2003, which was disposed of by order dated April 7, 2004 directing the District Inspector of Schools to give appropriate decision. This is how the impugned decision came to be given.

(5.) THE West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 came into force from November 1, 1997. In Section 9 (2) of the Act it was provided that any appointment of a teacher made on or after the commencement of that act in contravention of the provisions thereof would be invalid and would have no effect. A statutory duty was cast on the regional commission by the provisions in Section 7 of the Act to select persons for appointment to the posts of teacher in schools within its territorial jurisdiction. And the schools, meaning the recognized non-government aided institutes, are to appoint the persons selected and recommended by the commission. The provisions in section 17 empowered the State Government t