JUDGMENT :

T.S. Thakur, J.

These appeals arise out of an order dated 23rd September, 2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta whereby CANs No. 3863/2004 and 3861/2004 filed by the respondent-State of West Bengal and others have been allowed, order dated 18th December, 2003 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court set aside and Writ Petitions No. 16256 and 16255 of 2003 filed by the appellants herein dismissed.

2. The appellants, it appears, were appointed as teachers on temporary basis in what is known as Khalsa Girls High School, Puddopukur Road, Bhowanipore, Calcutta. Their appointment did not, however, meet the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, Calcutta, according to whom any such appointment could be made only on the recommendations of the School Service Commission established under the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 (the Rules) (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules").

3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Inspector, the appellants approached the High Court of Calcutta in Writ Petitions No. 16256 and 16255 of 2003 which were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 29th January, 2004 holding that the institution in which the appellants were appointed being a linguistic minority institution was entitled to select and appoint its teachers. The Single Bench accordingly directed the respondents in the writ petitions to approve the appointment of the appellants as whole time teachers with effect from 28th July, 1999 and release the arrears of salary and other service benefits in their favour with effect from the said date.

4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge, the State of West Bengal, Director of School Education and District Inspector of Schools preferred CAN Nos. 3861 of 2004 and 3863 of 2004 against the order passed by the Single Bench which appeals were allowed and disposed of by a Division Bench of that Court by a common order dated 23rd September, 2004. The High Court held that since the Institution in which the appellants were appointed was a recognised aided Institution, the Management of the Institution was bound to follow the mandate of Rule 28 of the Rules aforementioned which permitted appointments against a permanent post only if the candidate was recommended for any such appointment by the School Service Commission. The Division Bench further held that the appellants having been appointed beyond the sanctioned staff strength at the relevant point of time and de hors the rules could not claim any approval in their favour. The Court noted that directions issued by the Director of School Education, Government of West Bengal did not permit any appointment without the prior permission of the Director. No such permission had been, in the case at hand, obtained from the Director. More importantly, the Division Bench held that since the Institution had not made any claim to its being a Minority Institution it was not open to the employees-writ petitioners to claim any such status on its behalf. The Division Bench further took the view that once a minority community applies for a Special Constitution under Sub-Rule III of Rule 8 of the said Rules it represents to the State Government that it was not claiming the status of a minority institution. The Single bench had, therefore, fallen in error in holding that the Institution where the appellants worked was a minority Institution or that the appointment made by such an Institution would not be regulated by Rule 28 of the Rules mentioned above. The present appeals, as noticed above, call in question the correctness of the view taken by the Division bench of the High Court.

5. The short question that falls for determination is whether Khalsa Girls High School, Puddopukur Road, Calcutta is a Minority Institution, if so, whether the Institution's right to select and appoint teachers is in any way affected by the provisi