JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:

1. The writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to regularise his service as a drawing teacher and to pass consequential orders after fixing his revised pay and allowances.

2. The petitioner claims to have participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of drawing teacher in Manbhum Mukta Badhir Vidyapith, Purulia (for short “the institution) and was ultimately appointed as a drawing teacher on contract basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 12,270. The appointment of the petitioner was approved with effect from November 22, 2010 for a period of one year. The contractual period was renewed from time to time and the petitioner claims that he is rendering service as a drawing teacher in the said institution till date. The petitioner further claims that the Secretary of the managing committee of the said institution as well as the District Mass Education Extension, Purulia requested the Director of Mass Education from time to time to regularise the service of the petitioner as he has been working on contractual basis from November 22, 2010 without any interruption. The petitioner further claims that the services of some teaching and non- teaching staff of another institution who were initially appointed on contract basis were subsequently regularised and they are now getting their regular pay and allowances. The petitioner therefore claims that being similarly situated, the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of his service with regular pay and allowances.

3. Ms. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for appointment as a drawing teacher of the said institution. She further contended that the petitioner participated in the selection process and being successful in the said selection process was ultimately appointed to the said post. She placed reliance upon a Memo No. 8305-F dated September 26, 2005 and the subsequent Memo Nos. 642-F dated January 24, 2006 and contended that since the job attached to the post in question is perennial in nature and also that the contractual appointment of the petitioner has been renewed from time to time, he has to be brought under the regular establishment against regular vacancies. She placed reliance upon an order passed by a co-ordinate bench on August 18, 2015 in WP 12096 (W) of 2013 with CAN 3579 of 2014 in the case of Binod Jha vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. wherein direction was passed to grant approval of appointment to the petitioner in Binod Jha (supra) and thereafter to fix the pay scale of the petitioner concerned. Ms. Sengupta submitted that the petitioner being similarly situated person is also entitled to get his service regularised against the regular vacancies in the scale of pay applicable to the post in question.

4. Mr. Chattopadhyay learned Senior Government Advocate disputed the submission made by Ms. Sengupta. He submitted that the Government in Mass Education Extension and Library Services department with the concurrence of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet took a policy decision to fill up the vacant post of drawing teacher of the concerned institution on contractual basis. Pursuant to the said decision an advertisement was made for filling up the post in question on contractual basis at the minimum of the respective scale of pay without any allowances. He submitted that the petitioner was appointed to this post of drawing teacher on contractual basis and after accepting the said contractual appointment he is estopped from claiming that his service is to be regularised. By referring to the Rules of Business of the Government of West Bengal Mr. Chattopadhyay submitted that since the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet being the highest authority of the government took a decision to fill up the post on contract service, the order of the Finance Department is not binding upon the State an