IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the importance of adherence to appointment and regularization procedures for Organizing Teachers as per relevant notifications and rules, while also recognizing the opportunity for affected parties to seek parity of treatment based on subsequent orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

JUDGMENT :

SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Order and Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench on 09.06.2015 in Writ Petition No. 28115 (W) of 2012.

2. By the impugned Judgment and Order the Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition praying for granting an order regularizing the writ petitioner to the post of a teacher in a primary school under the District Primary School Council, North-24-Parganas.

3. The facts of the present case are that one Tarak Chandra Das claiming himself to be an Organizing Teacher of a school being appointed by the Chairman of the local Municipality as per the decision of the people of the locality, is seeking to have himself regularized.

4. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ writ petitioner has submitted that the said writ petitioner is an Organizing Teacher being appointed by the Chairman of the local Municipality on being recommended by the people of the locality. He has further submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner has not yet been regularized and prays for regularizing him to the post of a teacher. He has further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court had directed the Reviewing Committee to regularize the Organizing Teachers who have not yet been regularized and who are eligible for being regularized after scrutinizing their testimonials.

5. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents has submitted that the petitioner relied on the Government Notification No. 539-SE (Primary) dated 04.08.1997 and claimed his appointment as a Primary School Teacher under old Rule 3D (vide Notification No. 975 dated 26.10.1971). It has further been submitted that the said Notification No. 539-SE (Primary) dated 04.08.1997 specifically states that in cases where schools had been recognized prior to coming into force of new Rule 3D, that is before the date of the relevant Notification being No. 713-ED (P) dated 11.09.1980, the Organizer Teachers who had been working in those schools and were eligible for appointment as per provisions of old Rule 3D may submit application to the respective Primary School Councils who will consider their cases. He has further submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner in his affidavit affirmed on 19.05.2022 has mentioned his age to be 58 years. So at the relevant point of time, that is during the year 1980, the said appellant writ petitioner was 16 years old, which is quite astonishing.

6. The Learned Counsel has further submitted that the writ petitioner has submitted that he was appointed as per decision of the people of the locality which is also not at all acceptable. He has also submitted that the Hon’ble Single Bench by the impugned Order has expressed surprise about the fact that the people of the locality started recommending somebody for being appointed as a Primary Teacher and there is no such case or rule by which the writ petitioner’s service could be regularized. Relying on such submissions Learned Counsel has assailed the impugned order.

7. From the contentions of the parties it reveals that the appellant has come with the plea that he is an Organizing Teacher of a school being appointed by the Chairman of the local municipality and the people of the locality took the decision as regards his appointment. The said appellant has prayed for regularizing him as teacher being an Organizing Teacher. It is confusing to note that the people of the locality took the decision as regards to the appointment of the appellant/ petitioner which raises doubt in the mind of this Court too, on the basis of which the Hon’ble Single Bench also rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner.

8. As regards to regularizing the Organizing Teachers in the post of primary teachers the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed several Orders among which the orders dated 16.04.2015, 28.01.2016 and 06.10.2016 can be referred to for the purpose of this discussion.

9. The Order passed by the Hon’ble Apex