Sinha, J.: All these appeals, which are directed against a common judgment dated 14.6.96 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, were with the consent of the parties heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The learned trial Judge allowed hundreds of writ applications filed by thousands of Primary School Teachers' claiming regularisation s upon granting recognition of the schools. The learned trial Judge also issued several directions to the State and other respondents of the said writ applications setting out the modalities relating to on recognition of schools and appointment of Organiser Teachers and Teachers-in-Position.

2. The learned trial Judge treated the applications as a Social Action Litigation and directed that all writ applications would be governed by the said judgment as the same would sub-serve the requirement of society by upholding the interest of the public and by allowing vast number of Citizens/Litigants to have access to the deliver) system of Justice without any further expenditure in the Court.

3. While deciding the aforementioned questions the learned trial Judge framed two primary issues, namely;-

(i) whether the organiser teachers, as contemplated in Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930, (hereinafter referred to as the 1930 Act) who have/had organised rural and urban part of the States are entitled to be absorbed after due recognition of the respective schools? or alternatively;

(ii) whether services of such organiser teachers would be regularised by granting recognition of the schools where writ petitioners who have been still imparting education as primary teachers since its inception?

4. With a view to adjudicate the aforementioned principal issues, the learned trial Judge also framed the following four subsidiary issues:-

1. Whether substitution of Old Rule 3D by the subsequent Rule 3D, introduced by G.O. No 713-EDN(P) dated 11th September, 1980 will obliterate the Old Rule 3D as contrary to or in conflict with the rule relating to appointment of Primary Teachers?

2. Whether substituted Rule 3D will be deemed to be obliterated and stands repealed, then whether such repeal has any retrospective effect?

3. Right to have organised primary schools to be recognised along with the approval of organiser teachers under the Old Rule 3D, is a vested right and as such cannot be taken away otherwise than by an express provision of law?

4. Whether the judgment in (1) Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee v. Jitendra Nath Chatterjee reported in 95 CWN 754 is an authoritative precedent and act as a stare decises in the present cases relating to organiser teachers and binding upon the single bench?

5. While deciding the different categories of cases the learned trial Judge divided the grievances raised before him in seven categories which read thus :-

"(a) Organised Primary Schools were never granted recognition.

(b) Primary Schools were granted recognition but organiser teachers were not appointed. In some cases even interview was held long ago.

(c) Primary Schools were granted recognition but Organiser Teachers attached to such schools were not appointed but outsider were appointed in those schools by the concerned Ad-hoc Committees of the respective District School Board/Council.

(d) Organised Primary Schools run by the Organiser Primary Teachers for a long time, subsequently, the said schools were selected by the erstwhile Ad-hoc Committees School Board/Council for recognition and appointment was given to persons other than Organiser Teachers, i. e. a new set of teachers.

(e) Schools organised before 1978, inspection held but not yet recognised.

(f) Schools situated in Municipal Area, small amount of money paid to the teachers by the concerned Municipality but subsequently payment stopped and the schools were not yet granted recognition.

(g) Where trained Primary Teachers were not appointed by the concerned District School Boards/Council, though schools set up by trained Organiser Teach