(1.) "actus curiae neminers gravabit." No litigant should suffer for the mistake on the part of the Court or his Advocate. I wish to apply this doctrine to resolve the present controversy.

(2.) The writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in language group on January 2, 1984 in Kadipukur Naskar High School in the district of 24-Parganas (South). This school was upgraded on May 1, 1992 after D.L.I.T. inspection. The petitioners name appeared not only in the D.L.I.T. report but also in other official documents pertaining to the concerned school. After the school was upgraded all organizing staff were recognized by the State excepting the petitioner. He approached this Court by filing C.O. No. 1425 (W) of 1995.This Court directed the District Inspector to consider his representation. The District Inspector after giving personal hearing to all concerned passed a detailed reasoned order on May 8, 1995 appearing at pages 19-24 of the writ petition.

(3.) Analysis of the speaking order of the District Inspector reveals the following :- (i) Petitioner was an organizing staff and he was recognized by D.L.I.T. an Assistant Teacher in language group. (ii) Although the peti