The lien of a government employee in service law is the right of the government employee to hold a permanent post substantively to which he has been permanently appointed.

Harish Tandon, J.

This case has a chequered history. The parties have moved several round of litigation before this court.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1988 after accorded the approval by the District Inspector of School. Because of the vacancy of the post of Head Teacher, the petitioner was entrusted to work as teacher-in-charge upon granting the necessary approval in the year 1988 itself. Till the year 1991, the Managing Committee appointed one Atul Chandra Roy as Headmaster of the said school. The said Headmaster worked till the year 1997 and thereafter, the petitioner was again appointed as teacher-incharge. The petitioner was allowed to function in such capacity with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Subsequently by circular dated March 5, 2001, the State declared that the school which is upgraded to High School from a Junior High, the Headmaster working therein should be approved as a Headmaster of the upgraded High School provided he had a requisite qualification. Subsequently, the publication was made for filling up the vacancy for the post of Headmaster in the said school i.e. Uttar Sankarpur S.C. High School, Uttar Dinajpur where the petitioner was working as a teacher-in-charge.

3. Challenging the aforesaid publication, the petitioner filed the writ petition being W.P. No. 10789 (w) of 2001 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, more particularly, the School Service Commission from giving any effect or further effect to the vacancy of declaration of the post, allegedly on the ground, that the petitioner is already appointed to the post of Headmaster in the said school as teacher-in-charge. The said writ petition was dismissed with cost by Barin Ghosh,J. (as His Lordship then was) in holding that the petitioner’s appointment as teacher-in-charge though approved but is not a teaching post as it does not require extra qualification. It is further held that the teacher-in-charge is the stop gap arrangement until the Headmaster takes over so as to look after the administrative function of the school. Ultimately, it was found that because of the promulgation of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act which requires minimum qualification and experience for the Assistant Teacher vis-à-vis the Headmaster or Headmistress which has not been acquired by the petitioner and therefore, has no right to be appointed to the post of Headmaster. The appeal carried out against the said order being MAT No. 3117 of 2001 was also dismissed. However, the cost so awarded was made easy.

4. At the time when the said mandamus appeal was pending, the petitioner was appointed to the post of a Headmaster in Purgram S.C. High School on recommendation by the School Service Commission which is challenged in the instant writ petition. The Appellate Court duly recorded the aforesaid subsequent events and thereafter, observed that since the petitioner has already been accommodated in another school and he has relinquished his claim in Uttar Sankarpur S.C. High School, the question whether the appellant procured such appointment or not becomes academic.

5. It is undisputed that a vacancy for the post of Headmaster in Purgram S.C. High School was advertised and the petitioner offered his candidature by submitting an application to the School Service Commission and was, thereafter, recommended by the said Commission to Purgram S.C. High School for being appointed to the post of a Headmaster. The private respondents, thereafter, initiated a writ proceeding before this court being W.P No. 21128 (w) of 2006. Challenging the appointment of the petitioner to the post of a Headmaster in Purgram S.C. High School on the ground that the same is procured by practicing fraud and misrepresenting the actual state of affairs. Initially, a point was taken therein that the private respondents being the guardians of the students have no