JUDGMENT 1. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties is appears that the writ petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the petitioner, the Govt. Scale of pay since 3.8.81 upon declaration that the service of the petitioner is confirmed and she is entitled the benefits. It is stated in details that the petitioner has been permanently acting as assistant teacher in Sishu Mahal, pre-primary/K.G. School at Jalpaiguri. It is placed on record that under memo No. 434 dated 2.7.81 issued from the office of the Dist. Inspector of Schools (P.E.) Jalpaiguri to the Addhakshya, Sishu Mahal asking him to submit all particulars of all the candidates to the said office. It is further submitted that the communication dated 23.7.81 from the office of the D. I. (P. E.) Jalpaiguri informing inter alia that the panel proposed for teaching and non-teaching staff along with other requisite papers which were submitted by the School authorities has since been approved. It is alleged that the Govt. Authorities accorded their approval in respect of the appointment and subsequent by the staff pattern has not properly been approved. The grievances of the petitioner is that having rendered continuous service to the permanent post of assistant teacher in the said institution from 3.8.81 and in view of the G.O. 196-Ed.(P)/10R-6/68 dated 28.4.69 from the Director of School Edn. Govt. of W.B. the petitioner's service is required to be regularised in accordance with law. 2. The writ petition is contested by the State respondents by filing affidavit. It is placed on record that Sishu Mahal, K.G. Unit (preprimary) in the same premises of Sishu Mahal and is governed by the Govt. Body which is registered under Societies Registration Act and are receiving grant and pre-basic (Nursery) first unit is under B.S.E./W.B. and appointment, transfer etc. are controlled by the D.S.E./W.B. and the Govt. Body has no authority. It is placed on record that the panel prepared by the Governing Body and the same approved by the D.I. (Jalpaiguri) and that the appointment from the said panel should be made as per rules. But the aforesaid appointment was issued without following any rules. 3. Considering the circumstances and upon perusal of the materials on record this court finds that the petitioner is working temporarily in the said institution from 3.8.81. But the aforesaid appointment was issued without following any rules. 3. Considering the circumstances and upon perusal of the materials on record this court finds that the petitioner is working temporarily in the said institution from 3.8.81. There are various exchange of letters and the petitioner is working in the said school. The recommendation of the D.I. is also there. The only challenge is made by the State respondents is that the appointment was not made in accordance with the rules nor the appointment was made against any permanent vacancy. In fact, it is brought to the notice or the court that the staff pattern permits the appointment of the petitioner and the petitioner was appointed by the appropriate authority and there is no anomaly with regard to the appointment. 4. No steps have been taken to appoint and/or permit the petitioner to work which is contrary to or inconsistent. 5. Considering the relevant records the writ petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute directing the State respondents to consider granting of approval of the petitioner's appointment within 8 weeks from the date of communication and the petitioner would be entitled to all financial benefit, as she is in continuous service on and from 3.8.81. The arrear dues and other benefits would be released to the petitioner within six months from date. There will be no order as to costs.