JUDGMENT 1. THESE four Rules arise out of a peculiar situation created by termination of services of four teachers by the administrator-cum-receiver appointed in respect of the school in question, that is Sri Hanurrian Balika vidyalaya, an aided Class X High school, at 3, Arabinda Road, Salkia, howrah, and consequent appointment of four teachers in the vacancies caused by the termination of services of four approved teachers of the school who preferred appeal before the appeal committee of the Board pursuant to the provisions of section 22 of the West bengal Board of Secondary Education act, 1963 (West Bengal Act V of 1963 ). These Rules also involve the question of approval of a teacher Balaram Tewari who was appointed as assistant teacher in 1966 in the science stream initially on a temporary basis and subsequently he was selected by the District selection Committe and was allowed to draw revised scale of pay by an order of the District Inspector of Schools (S. E) Howrah in 1968. 2. C.R 4001 of 80 has been obtained by Dalaram Tiwari, the assistant teacher of the school against and order, one being memo area annexed as annexure to petition issued by the District inspector or schools on 18. 03. 80 communicating to the administrator of me school concerned about me grant of approval of appointment to the four teachers mentioned therein with effect from 1. 8. 79. An interim order was also obtained to this effect that respondent nos. 1 to 4 were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of according approval of his appointment as an assistant teacher of the school. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner was duly selected by the members of the managing committee of the school and was given appointment as an assistant teacher on 6. 9. 66. The petitioner has been working as an assistant teacher, teaching pupils in the science stream since that date. His further case is that he was directed to appear before the selection committee and after interview he was duly selected by the District Selection Committee as is evident from memo no. 2505 (124) dated 15. 4. 68. Howrah issued by the district Inspector of Schools (S. E.), howrah and he was allowed to get revised scale of pay. His further case is that he was directed to appear before the selection committee and after interview he was duly selected by the District Selection Committee as is evident from memo no. 2505 (124) dated 15. 4. 68. Howrah issued by the district Inspector of Schools (S. E.), howrah and he was allowed to get revised scale of pay. The petitioner has also stated that he was deputed by the school for B. Ed training from 1. 7. 71 to 15. 5. 72 and his deputitaion was duly approved and he received deputation allowance from the Director of public Instruction, West Bengal, during the said deputation period. After completion of his B. Ed. course the petitioner duly joined the school on 16. 5. 72 as an assistant teacher and he has been taking classes 01 Chemistry and Physias in respect of Classes IX to XI of the said school. The petitioner has duly got his salaries from the school upto 1972 and received half of his salary from 16. 5. 72 to April, 1979 from the school. It has been stated by the petitioner that since May, 1979 his salary has been stopped altogether though he has been working in the school without any remuneration since then. He made representation before the Board through the district Inspector of Schools for granting approval by his letter dated 4. 4. 78 but no approval was accorded as yet. In the meantime the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.) Howrah, respondent no 4, issued the impugned memo dated 29. 2. 80 approving provisionally the case of four teachers, that is respondent nos. 9,10,11, and 12 with effect from 1. 8. 79. This order of respondent no. 4 has been challenged before this court on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed against the 25th post out of the posts sanctioned in respect of appointment of teachers in this school. C.R. 3549 (W) of 80 was obtainted by the administrator Dilip Sarkar against the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), Howrah dated 18. 3. C.R. 3549 (W) of 80 was obtainted by the administrator Dilip Sarkar against the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), Howrah dated 18. 3. 80 according approval of four teachers in the said school on the ground that the approval to the appointment of these teachers were not asked for as required under the provisions of rule 28 (1) of the rules framed for Management of Recognised non-Government Institutions (Aided and Un-aided), 1969 and also on the ground that the case of approval of Balaram Tewari who was appointed as an assistant teacher in 1966 in this schools was also pending for consideration before the District Inspector of Schools. It has also been urged that the appeals of three dismissed teachers have already been allowed and one of them has been reinstate, already and other two teachers voise appeals have been allowed by the Board and in spite of the order of reinstatement may by the appeal committee of the Board could not nor, be reinstated because of the interim order obtained one by a member of a former managing committee of the school and another by one of the teachers appointed in one of the vacancies caused by termination of service of one of the approved teachers of the school. It has, therefore, been stated that these teachers whose appeals have been allowed have to be reinstated and as such after their reimstatement and also after grant of approval to the appointment of Balaratai tewari, there will be practiclly mo vacancy left for absorption of all the four teachers even if the present strength of teaching staff is increased to 27 by provisional sanction of 4 additional posts. It has, therefore, been submitted on behalf of the administrator, who is the petitioner, that the impugned order of the District Inspector of School (S. E.) Howrah, respondent no. 3, should be quashed, cancelled and set aside. 3. THE other two Rules, that is (1) C. R. 4120 (W) of 78 was obtained by one Sripal @ Shreenal Saraog against the order passed by the appeal committee allowing appeal nos. 26 to 28 of. 73 preferred by Daya Sankar Upadhyay, Gobinda Prosad Jadav and Sibsahkkar Pandey. The other (2) C. R. 6651 )W) of 78 was obtained by Sm. 26 to 28 of. 73 preferred by Daya Sankar Upadhyay, Gobinda Prosad Jadav and Sibsahkkar Pandey. The other (2) C. R. 6651 )W) of 78 was obtained by Sm. Indro Kanoor, a teacher who was appointed in the vacancy caused by termination of service of Sri S. S. Pandey. In both these cases there was an interim order to the extent that the operation of the decision of the appeal committee will not be given effect to. 4. BEFORE proceeding to consider the earlier two Rules, in the fitness of things, it is expedient that these two latter Rules should be considered and decided first. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing in support of both these rules, has argued with some vehemence about the vires of proviso (2) of Section 51 (b) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act which was introduced by the West Bengal Board of secondary Education Amendment Act, 1978 (West Bengal Act II of 1978 ). The proviso runs as follows : "provided that an administrator appointed under this clause may delegate any of his powers, duties or functions to such person as he may think fit or to such body as may be constituted by him. " mr. Dutta argued that this provision is wholly unreasonable inasmuch as it empowers the administrator to delegate the powers, duties and functions of the appeal committee upon respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 who are wholly unfit to the powers, duties and functions of the appeal committee. It has been submitted by him that the decision made, by the appeal committee is not a legal and valid decision and the same is liable to be quashed. Before entering into the merits the first question that poses itself for decision it has the petitioner any right either legal, statutory or fundamental, which has been affected by the impugned order made by the appeal committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary education It is well known in view of several pronouncements of the Supreme Court that to come before the writ court the petitioner has to satisfy how he is aggrieved, or in the words, what legal right or fundamental right of the petitioner has been affected or infringed upon by the impugned order ? It will be very expedient to refer to an illuminating obsservation made by the then learned Chief Justice of India A. N. Ray, C. J. in the case of Mani Subrat jain vs. State of Haryana, reported in A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 276, which runs as follows : "it is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. " mr. Dutta tried to cross this hurdle by referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar (A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 578 ). But unfortunately there the same view has been reiterated. It has been observed in a very succint language that in order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an "aggrieved person. " It was held that as the appellant failed to prove that he had a legal right under the statutory provisions' or under the general law which has been subjected to or threatened with injury, the appeal should be dismissed with cost. Therefore, this decision does not held Mr. Dutta. But on the other hand it goes against the submission made by Mr. Dutta. My attention was drawn to a Division Bench judgment of our Court in F. M. A. 149 of 1974 (Sudhir chandra Chakraborty vs. West Bengal board of Secondary Education) where it has been observed as follows : "from the above provisions it is abundantly clear that there is no scope for hearing any other party than the teacher on the one hand and the managing committee on the other and therefore, the appeal committee had no jurisdiction to hear the appellant who had no legal right to be heard in the facts and circumstances of this case. The appeal committee prima facie appears to have duly heard the appeal and made its decision. " 5. The appeal committee prima facie appears to have duly heard the appeal and made its decision. " 5. ON a conspectus of the decisions referred to above the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in the above rules fails on the preliminary ground that the petitioners in these two Rules have no locus standi to come before this writ Court as neither they had any legal right nor their fundamental right has been affected in any manner whatsoever. I may point out in this connection that in c. R. 4120 (W) /78 the petitioner claims to be a member of the managing Committee of the school. This claim is however, not bourne at all by the facts and circumstances of the cases for the simple reason that an administrator was appointed already in respect of this school in place of the managing committee at the relevant time. In respect of the other Rule being c. R. 6651 (W)78 the petitioner as has been mentioned hereinbefore already is one of the appointees in one of the vacancies caused by the termination of one of the approved teachers of this school whose appeal succeeded before the appeal committee of the Board. So, she has got no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the appeal committee, It is either for the managing committee or for the teachers concerned who are the aggrieved persons and who can have any grievance and. who are competent to come before the writ Court for redress of their grievances, if any. So, this petitioner has also got no locus standi. Therefore, for the reasons stated hereinbefore these two rules are discharged without any order 6. THE position now is that out of four dismissed teachers one has already been reinstated by the school and the other two are entitled to get reinstated in the posts where they had worked before the order of termination of their services by the administrator. 1 will point out in this connection circular no. 3225 (24) GA dt. 19. 4. 68. This was issued by the Director of Public instruction, West Bengal, to the district Inspector of Schools, Howrah, under the heading Removal and subsequent Reinstatement of Teaching and non-teaching Staff of the Aided Non government Schools. 1 will point out in this connection circular no. 3225 (24) GA dt. 19. 4. 68. This was issued by the Director of Public instruction, West Bengal, to the district Inspector of Schools, Howrah, under the heading Removal and subsequent Reinstatement of Teaching and non-teaching Staff of the Aided Non government Schools. It is necessary to quote here the last portion of the circular which runs as follows : "in the circumstances the undersigned is directed to state that the authorities of the aided non-Government Secondary Schools should not appoint any substitutes in the vacancies caused by discharge or termination of service of any teaching staff (including H. M.) and nonteaching staff of the schools without prior approval of the Education directorate, until the time for disposal of an appeal by the appeal committee of W. B. Board of Secondary Education or any other competent authority) expires." Therefore, this circular gives a clear direction to the District Inspector of Schools and for that also to the governing body of the School concerned that vacancies caused by the termination or removal of service of the teachers should not be filled up till the time for disposal of an appeal by the appeal committee expires and this circular has been issued for the specific purpose that if any appointments are made during the pendency of these appeals which will create enormous complications in the matter of rendering the new appointees as surplus in case of the appeal being succeeded and also further complication for disbursement of their pay and dearness allowances if the strength of the teaching staff has been filled up already. To avoid all these complications this wise circular was issued by the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal. 7. HOWEVER, in regard to these two Rules there is no dispute that the petitioner Balaram Tewari was appointed as an assistant teacher duly selected by the managing committee of the school In 1966. There is also not an iota of doubt that in accordance with the direction of the District Inspector of schools, Howrah, respondent no. 4, the petitioner was asked to appear before the District Selection Committee by the headmaster of the school concerned. This is evident from the letter of the headmaster dated 17. 2. 68 being annexed as annexure D to the petition. 4, the petitioner was asked to appear before the District Selection Committee by the headmaster of the school concerned. This is evident from the letter of the headmaster dated 17. 2. 68 being annexed as annexure D to the petition. It also appears that the petitioner was selected by the District selection committee provisionally upto 31. 8. 68 and he was informed that he was eligible to get revised scale of pay by the memo dated 15. 4. 68. There is no dispute also that the petitioner's name was recommended for deputation before the authorities concerned and approval was accorded for his deputation for training for b. Ed. diploma for the period from 1. 7. 71 to 15. 5. 72. It is pertinent to refer in this connection to memo no. 982 80/g dated 7. 3. 68, From this memo it clearly appears that the teacher who is serving at least continuously for one year against a permanent post in a school can be recommended for deputation for reading B. Ed. course or b. T. course. It also appears that the application is to be made in the prescribed manner and from the model application from which has been specified at page 520-21 of the Headmasters' Manual. There is a column-date of appointment in the school in the substantive basis. This clearly goes to show that the very fact that the teacher balaram Tewari was deputed for studying for B. Ed. course with pay and allowances approved by the Director of Public Instruction, establishes that he was appointed on a substantive basis. Therefore, it cannot be said that his appointment is an appointment purely temporary and there was no vacancy. There is also no averment controverting the clear statements made on oath by the petitioner that he received the full salary from the date of his appointment till 1972 and this is quite in accordance with the circular no. 2409 GA dated 2. 8. 78 at page 397 of the Headmasters' Manual. Therefore, undoubtedly in the grant-in-aid memo his salary was asked for, grants were sanctioned and released and payments were made till 1972. That goes to disprove any sort of submission that the appointment of this teacher viz, Balaram Tewari was purely a temporary appointment and I do not find any reason why a responsible officer like respondent no. Therefore, undoubtedly in the grant-in-aid memo his salary was asked for, grants were sanctioned and released and payments were made till 1972. That goes to disprove any sort of submission that the appointment of this teacher viz, Balaram Tewari was purely a temporary appointment and I do not find any reason why a responsible officer like respondent no. 4 and who is no other than the District Inspector of Schools is so ignorant of this important circular and has skept the case of approval of this teacher pending since 1966 till today and the reasons that have been given, in my opinion ane very perfunctory and flimsy and they are inconsistent on the face of it inasmuch as in one memo he has said that the appointment has been given in the vacancy caused by the resignation of one Mrs. Ganguli and while In the affidavit-in-opposition sworn in C. R. 3549 (W)/80 in paragraph 5 by the assistant inspector of schools it has been specifically stated that Tewari was appointed against 25th vacancy. This very statement in the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by Mr. Mridul Kanti Sen Gupta, Sub-Inspector of School on behalf of respondents nos. 1 ro 4 in para 5 is self contradictory. That will be clear from the averments made in para 6 of the said affidavit-in-opposition where reasons for not according approval was stated and one of the reasons was that the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy caused by the termination of service of Sm. S. Gauguli with effect from 15. 1. 68 whereas the teacher concerned was appointed on 6. 9. 66 and as such the school authorities were asked to explain the position while as stated hereinbefore. In the said affidavit at the same breath it has been averred that that petitioner was appointed in the 25th post sanctioned upto 31st December, 1967. It appears that with reference to the memo no. 158 dated 4. 2. 80 issued by the District inspector of Schools forwarding memo no, 62 GA dated 14. 1. 80 of the Director of secondary Education, West Bengal, the administrator specifically intimated that application for sanction of the 25th post on and from 1. 1. 68 was duly made by the then school authority and service of Shri Balaram tewari who was appointed in 1966 was continued on and from 15. 1,68 for approval of his appointment against the said 25th post. 1. 68 was duly made by the then school authority and service of Shri Balaram tewari who was appointed in 1966 was continued on and from 15. 1,68 for approval of his appointment against the said 25th post. The Administrator therefore requested the respondent no. 4 to accord necessary approval to the appointment of the petitioner who is the only Science teacher of the School at the relevant time. But unfortunately no aproval was accorded. 8. IT has been urged with some vehemence by the learned Advocate Mr. Dutt appearing on behalf of the State respondents that the Administrator had not asked for approval of the appointment of Shri tewari-while the cases of approval of the other four teachers was being considered by the District Inspector of Schools. It has also been urged that actually no such approval was sought in 1968. This Court requested the learned Advocate for the State respondents to produce the relevant records to show when the approval was asked for but no such record could be produced and non production of such records speaks otherwise and against the story tried to be told before this Court. Therefore, in my opinion, considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the salient facts that this teacher's deputation was duly approved, he was paid his deputation allowances and he was paid after he joined the school after completion of his B. Ed. training as Assistant Teacher. Disbursement of grants-in-aid, salary and dearness allowances to him clearly goes against the submission endeavoured to be made and/or advanced on behalf of the respondent no. 4. On the other hand, in view of the circulars referred to here in before it clearly be speaks that the petitioner was appointed substantively and his case for approval is pending with the District Inspector of schools (respondent no. 4) since 1968 lit is really a matter of great sorrow that a responsible officer of the status of the respondent no. 4 will remain callous over such a serious matter on which depends the fate of a duly qualified and duly appointed teacher who is working in a school since May, 1979 without a single penny. It is not for me to say that the authorities concerned should not lose sight of the human aspect of the case while exercising its statutory power. It is not for me to say that the authorities concerned should not lose sight of the human aspect of the case while exercising its statutory power. Therefore, this Court is not at all satisfied with the reasoning tried to be pleaded before this Court for the inordinate and inexcusable delay in not according approval to a teacher who has been duly selected by the District Selection Committee and it was respondent no. 4 again who intimated that on the basis of such selection he has been granted revised scale of pay. In these circumstances equity, fairness and justice demand that this teacher must get approval when there is nothing against him as to his eligibility for the post he is holding so long since his first appointment in September, 1966. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances I am constrained to hold that this is a fit case where approval to the appointment of the petitioner shri Balaram Tewari should be accorded against the 25th post sanctioned for this school. Accordingly let a Writ of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents to take appropriate steps to consider the case of the petitioner and to accord necessary approval to this case in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. 9. AS regards the other four respondents, viz., respondents nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the other Rule, i. e., C. R. ?549 (W) of 1980 undoubtedly these teachers were appointed in the vacancies caused by the termination of services of four teachers but one aspect of the case should not be lost sight of, that is, they are working in the school since their appointment for a pretty long time and on this basis of a direction made by this Court in, C. R. No. 7606 (W) of 1979 by T. K. Basu, J. that the authorities concerned will consider and dispose of the cases of approval pending before the in accordance with law. The authorities concerned have however by order dated 18. 3. 80 approved appointment of these four teachers against four posts sanctioned provisionally. I do not think it fit and proper at this stage for the, ends of justice and equity to enter into the question of propriety, expediency and legality and for validity of these appointments. The authorities concerned have however by order dated 18. 3. 80 approved appointment of these four teachers against four posts sanctioned provisionally. I do not think it fit and proper at this stage for the, ends of justice and equity to enter into the question of propriety, expediency and legality and for validity of these appointments. There is no dispute that at present the total strength of the teaching staff as approved is 27 and I am told by Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Administrator who is the petitioner in C. R. No. 3549 (W) of 1980 that after reinstatement of the teachers whose appeals have succeeded and Rules obtained against them had also befit discharged by me there still remains four vacancies after absorption of Shri balaram Tewari against the 25th vacancy. Therefore there is ho difficulty about the approval accorded provisionally to the appointment of these four teachers (respondents nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9 ). It has been tried to be submitted by Mr. Basu, learned Advocate for the Administrator that one Shri S. P. Tewari who has become surplus due to the school being reduced from class XI to Class X High school and as such he has to be absorbed. But I find that this teacher has been shown as absorbed in the pattern of teaching staff of the school in Social science Group against the 4th post. This being the position, in my opinion; by the according of approval of the four teachers not difficulty is created. At jeast no such difficulty has been focused before the Court nor has been pleaded in the petition itself moved on behalf of the Administrator. Therefore, I am not impressed with this objection tried to be raised on behalf of the Administrator. 10. FOR the reasons aforesaid I am not inclined to interfere with the approval accorded by the Dist. Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Howrah, dated 18. 3. 80 as mentioned in annexure V to the writ petition in C. R. 3549 (W) of 1980. I have already directed the District Inspector of Schools (respondent no. 4) to accord approval to Balaram Tewari, petitioner in C. R. no. Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Howrah, dated 18. 3. 80 as mentioned in annexure V to the writ petition in C. R. 3549 (W) of 1980. I have already directed the District Inspector of Schools (respondent no. 4) to accord approval to Balaram Tewari, petitioner in C. R. no. 4001 (W) of 1980 from the date of his: appointment in accordance with law, Therefore no 4001 (W) of 1980 is made absolute and let a writ be issued as directed hereinbefore on respondents nos. 4 and 6 to accord necessary approval in respect of appointment of the petitioner in accordance with law. C. R. 3549 (W) of 1980 is disposed of. The order of approval accorded by the respondent no. 3 in my opinion will stand. In view of the other "two Rules nos. 4120 (W) of 1978 and 6651 (W) of 1978 being discharged the respondents nos. 11 and 12 be reinstated in accordance with the order passed by the appeal Committee of the Board. The District Inspector of schools, Secondary Education, Howrah is hereby directed to take steps for disbursement of salaries of all the above five teachers and also the salaries to which the reinstated teachers are entilied in accordance with law as early as possible, The District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Howrah is also directed to pay Shri Balaram tewari all his arrear salaries and dearness allowances from the date the same remain unpaid by the District Inspector of Schools concerned. This direction about payment is also given in respect of other teachers mentioned herein before. There will be no order for costs in these Rules. Let signed copies of the operative portion of this judgment be given to the learned Advocates for the parties, as prayed for. Rule made absolute in C. R. 4001 (W) of 1980 Rule disposed of in C. R. 3549 (W) of 1980 disposed of, C. R. 4120 (W) and 6651 (W) of 1978 discharged. No order as to costs in all the rules.