JUDGMENT : - Tarun Chatterjee : This is an appeal by the District School Board, 24 Parganas (North & South) (for short "the School Board'.'), from a decision dated 22nd December, 1989 of a learned Judge of this Court. By the aforesaid order the learned Judge allowed the writ petition filed by one 'Sri Dukhiram Sardar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent', directing the Director of Primary Education, West Bengal, to approve the appointment of the Respondent as an Assistant Teacher of a Primary School named as Karaketi Junior Basic School, Nekarihata, District-24 Pargans (for short 'the School') further directing the District Inspector of School Primary Education), South 24 Parganas to pay salary and allowances to the Respondent in accordance with the prescribed scale of pay since 18th March, 1977 with compound interest at the rate of 12% annually. 2. The respondent by making an application before the Head Teacher of the School and the then Minister of Education, Govt. of West Bengal, volunteered his service without remuneration in the year 1975 for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher of the School in the vacancy caused due to retirement of an Assistant Teacher of the School. By an order dated 1st November, 1975 passed by the then Minister of Education, Govt. of West Bengal the name of the Respondent was duly recommended for appointment. On the basis of such recommendation of the then Minister of Education, West Bengal the Respondent started to serve the School as an Assistant Teacher from November, 1975 and the Respondent has been rendering service as an Assistant Teacher of the School till today. 3. On or about 18th March, 1977 an inspection was made of the School by the Deputy Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle. The relevant part of the report is as follows: "Paid a surprise visit to Karakati Jr. Basic School, this day 18.3.77. There are 4 teachers against an enrolment of 207 students. Particulars of the teachers are given below: 1. Sri Sunil Kr. Mukherjee Mat. Basic. 2. Sri Barendra Nath Sarfui S.F. 3. Sri Panchugopal Sarkar G.T. 4. Sri Barindra Nath Pal LA. Enrolment and attendance of the day are also noted here below class by class: Class- V 18/23 ; Class- IV 14/22 ; Class- III 21/24; Total :: 141/207. Class- II 23/28 ; Class- I 65/110. Average attendance may be increased by active efforts. 2. Sri Barendra Nath Sarfui S.F. 3. Sri Panchugopal Sarkar G.T. 4. Sri Barindra Nath Pal LA. Enrolment and attendance of the day are also noted here below class by class: Class- V 18/23 ; Class- IV 14/22 ; Class- III 21/24; Total :: 141/207. Class- II 23/28 ; Class- I 65/110. Average attendance may be increased by active efforts. Enrolment of this School is not bad. It has been reported that a young man named Dukhiram Sardar R.S. has been offering voluntary and free service in this school from Nov. 75'. He was permitted to work as a Teacher in this school by the Attendance Committee. I am pleased with the behaviour of the teachers and the taught. I wish this school every success". (emphasis added) 4. It was found by the Deputy Assistant -Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle, in his report that the respondent was working in the school since, November, 1975 and that he was permitted to work as a teacher by the Attendance Committee of the school. After successful completion of more than three years of voluntary service by the respondent on 18th of November. 1978 the Head Teacher of the School himself forwarded the name of the respondent for being absorbed as an Assistant Teacher in the School by a letter addressed to the School Board. The said recommendation of the Head Teacher of the School was also forwarded by the Deputy Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle on 18th November, 1978 recommending absorption of the respondent as an Assistant Teacher of the School and admitting that the respondent was working in the school as an Assistant Teacher since November, 1975. The said recommendation dated 15th November, 1978 was again forwarded by the said Inspector of Schools, on 18th January,1979 with a note on the said application to the following effect: To The Secretary, D.S.B., 24 Pgs. Forwarded. Sri Dukhiram Sardar has been serving in Karaketi Jr. Basic School for more than three years. I found him working in that school with sincerity and devotion. . He is really a poor man. The statement of the Head Teacher seems to be a fact. Sri Sardar belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. He deserves sympathetic consideration," 5. An interview letter was thereafter issued by the School Board on 26th of April, 1979 directing the respondent to appear before an Interview Board on 10th of May, 1979. . He is really a poor man. The statement of the Head Teacher seems to be a fact. Sri Sardar belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. He deserves sympathetic consideration," 5. An interview letter was thereafter issued by the School Board on 26th of April, 1979 directing the respondent to appear before an Interview Board on 10th of May, 1979. Accordingly, 10th of May, 1979 the respondent appeared before the Interview Board. According to the respondent though the respondent had appeared before the Interview Board in obedience to the aforesaid notice no intimation was communicated to the respondent thereafter. Subsequently, on 17th of May, 1981 a mass petition was made for absorbing the respondent in the school by the local people and the guardians of the students of the school and representatives of the Panchayats. 6. The respondent thereafter filed the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before a learned Judge of this Court', seeking a direction upon the School Board and the Director, Primary Education, Government of West Bengal to approve the appointment of the respondent in the school and to pay the salary and other emoluments to the respondent in accordance with law. The writ petition was moved on 8th of July, 1981. On the said date, i.e. on the date of moving the writ petition, the following interim order was passed by a learned Judge of this Court. There will be an interim order directing the respondents to maintain status quo as on today as regards the working of the petitioner in the school concerned for a period of three weeks with liberty to pray (or extension on this application with notice to the respondents. Liberty is granted to pray for further interim order on this application in presence of the respondents." 7. On 18th of July, 1981 the application for extension of interim order passed on 8th of July, 1981 was taken up for hearing and an order to the following effect was passed. "The interim order is extended till the disposal of the rule, as none appears on behalf of the opposite party to oppose the prayer for extension inspite of copies being duly served on them as appears from the A/S Let the A/S be kept on record and let filing of further copies be dispensed with" 8. "The interim order is extended till the disposal of the rule, as none appears on behalf of the opposite party to oppose the prayer for extension inspite of copies being duly served on them as appears from the A/S Let the A/S be kept on record and let filing of further copies be dispensed with" 8. Thereafter, the School Board allowed the interim order granted by the learned Judge to continue till the disposal of the writ petition without taking any step for filing an application for vacating the interim order granted by the learned Judge on 18th of July, 1981 or by filing any appeal against the said interim orders granted on 8th of July, 1981 and 18th of July, 1981. It will not be out of place to mention that the other respondents to the writ petition namely, the Director of Primary Education (respondent no. 6), the District Inspector of Schools, Primary Education (respondent no. 5), Managing Committee of the School (respondent no. 7) and the Head Teacher of the School (respondent no. 8) however did not appear and contest the writ petition. Only the School Board and its authorities namely the respondent nos. 2 to 4 in the writ petition filed an affidavit-in-opposition, to the writ petition. In the said affidavit- in-opposition although it was stated by the School Board that the appointment of the respondent was not approved by him and the respondent could not claim himself to be a lawfully appointed Assistant Teacher of the School, but they admitted that the respondent has been continuously rendering service to the School as an Assistant Teacher, since 1975 without being appointed by them. 9. In this connection, it is necessary to quote some portions of paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the School Board before the Trial Judge for the purpose of appreciating the facts admitted by them. They are as under :- Para: 5. "In this connection, I state that even though the then Minister for Education Shri Gobinda Chandra Naskar recommended the application of the petitioner the same would not have given wise to any right for the petitioner to claim appointment under the District School Board, 24 Parganas. They are as under :- Para: 5. "In this connection, I state that even though the then Minister for Education Shri Gobinda Chandra Naskar recommended the application of the petitioner the same would not have given wise to any right for the petitioner to claim appointment under the District School Board, 24 Parganas. According to his own statement the petitioner started serving in the said vacant post of Assistant Teacher voluntarily and not after due appointment by the District School Board." (emphasis added) Para: 6. "It appears from the report dated 15th March, 1977 of the Deputy Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle. that the petitioner had been offering voluntary and free service in the Karagati Jr. Basic School (hereinafter referred to as 'the Said School’) from November, 1975. As such, I state this fact of inspection by the Deputy Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle, cannot establish the claim of the petitioner to get a regular appointment as Assistant Teacher by the District School Board." Para: 7. "In this connection, I state that the Sub Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle by his letter bearing Memo no 68 dated 7.8.81. has forwarded to the Secretary District School Board 24 Parganas, letter dated 6th August, 1981 from the Headmaster of the said school, being the respondent no. 8 herein. It appears from the said letter dated 6th August, 1981 of the respondent no. 8 that in the year 1975 after the then Assistant Teacher Sri Satis Chandra Naskar retired from the said school, a local young man being the petitioner herein came to join the said school as an Honorary Teacher on the recommendation of the then Minister for Education Sri Gobinda Chandra Naskar. But since the respondent no. 8 raised objection to it the said Minister was displeased and verbally directed the respondent No. 8 to implement his recommendation. It is also stated in the said letter that the members of the Advisory Committee of the said School did hart their consent in it. Being helpless the respondent no. 8 drew the attention of the Deputy Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle, to the aforesaid facts. The said Deputy Assistant Inspector of Schools on 18th March, 1977 inspected the said School and requested the petitioner to continue to render voluntary end free service and verbally requested the respondent no. 8 to keep quiet on the issue. 8 drew the attention of the Deputy Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle, to the aforesaid facts. The said Deputy Assistant Inspector of Schools on 18th March, 1977 inspected the said School and requested the petitioner to continue to render voluntary end free service and verbally requested the respondent no. 8 to keep quiet on the issue. It is further stated in the said letter that thereafter the Headmaster of the said School, being the respondent no. 8. kept quite on the issue but he never allowed the petitioner to sign the Attendance Register of the Teachers. It is stated that the petitioner used to sign in some separate sheets on his own and occasionally used to obtain the signature of the Headmaster. It has further been alleged by the respondent no. 8 in his said letter dated 6th August, 1981 that after Smt. Sadhana Das, being the respondent no. 9 herein joined the school obtaining her letter of appointment on 7th of May, 1981 a few villagers at the instigation of the writ petitioner man-handled and insulted the respondent no.8 and others. It is stated that the whole incident was brought to the notice of the Secretary, District School Board, 24 Parganas through the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Canning. The incident was also reported to the Canning Police Station. After obtaining assurance of necessary protection from the Police, it has been stated in the said letter by the respondent no. 8, that they have been carrying on the duties in the said school It has been alleged in the said letter that after the said incident the attendance of students of the said school was very poor and thereafter the condition became normal" (emphasis added) Para: 12 "With regard to the allegations made in paragraph 13 of the said petition, 1 state that the same are wild and baseless. I state that the question of approval or confirmation of the petitioner as a teacher of the said school does not arise at all inasmuch as he was never appointed by the 24 Parganas District School Board as a teacher in the said primary school. It also appears from the record that he even did not seek permission from the appropriate authorities of the concerned Respondents before voluntarily working in the said school to render service as a teacher." (emphasis added) 10. It also appears from the record that he even did not seek permission from the appropriate authorities of the concerned Respondents before voluntarily working in the said school to render service as a teacher." (emphasis added) 10. It also appears from the records that after receiving a copy of the writ petition with annexure and after coming to know of the interim order passed by the learned Trial Judge, the Headmaster of the School addressed a letter dated 6th August, 1981 to the School Board, which was annexed in the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the School Board before the learned Trial Judge. It appears from the said letter dated 6th August, 1981 that in the year 1975 after the retirement of an Assistant Teacher of the School, the respondent joined the School as an honorary teacher on the recommendation of the then Minister for Education and the then Education Minister directed the Head Teacher of the School to implement his recommendation. It also appears from the said letter that the Advisory Committee of the School did have their consent to it. 11. On going through the documents annexed to the writ petition including the reports and letters annexed therewith, and the admission made by the School Hoard in the aforesaid paragraphs of their affidavit in-opposition and the letters annexed therewith, the following facts can be found to have been admitted by the parties. They are as under: i). The respondent has been working in the School since November, 1975 as an Assistant Teacher in the permanent vacancy caused due to retirement of an assistant teacher of the School. ii). The recommendations for his absorption in the School were made to the School Board from time to time by Deputy Assistant Inspector of Schools, the Head Teacher of the School; iii). The recommendations which were made from 1975 to 1981 were neither rejected nor considered by the School Board. iv). From 1977 to 1981 the School Board did not take any step in the matter of directing the School authorities not to allow the respondent to utilise the service of the Respondent as the service of the Respondent could not be regularised or approved by them. v). iv). From 1977 to 1981 the School Board did not take any step in the matter of directing the School authorities not to allow the respondent to utilise the service of the Respondent as the service of the Respondent could not be regularised or approved by them. v). The writ petitioner was rendering service to the School from November, 1975 to 1931 with knowledge of the School Board and thereafter by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court till the disposal of the writ petition on 22nd December, 1989. vi). The School Board did not take any step against the interim order granted by the learned Judge by filing any appeal and allowed such interim order to continue for about seven years. vii). The Respondent was rendering service to the School as an Assistant Teacher with the approval of the School Authorities and with the knowledge of the School Board, in a permanent vacancy caused due to retirement of an Assistant Teacher of the School. 12. Taking all the aforesaid admitted facts into consideration and the respective submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, and keeping in mind that the other respondents to the writ petition namely, the Director of Primary Education (respondent no. 6), The District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education) (Respondent no. 5), Managing Committee of the School (respondent no. 7) and the Head Teacher of the School (respondent no. 8) did not prefer any appeal against the order under challenge, nor did they contest the writ proceeding; I am of the opinion that since the respondent had worked in the school even on voluntary basis from November, 1975 to 1981 without any break of service with the knowledge of the School Board and after moving the writ petition the respondent has been rendering service to the School by virtue of an interim order granted by the learned Trial Judge and such interim order was allowed to continue for about seven years by the School Board, this long spell of time for over fourteen years of continuous service without any break cannot mean that though the respondent was initially employed on voluntary basis, he continue to do so on that basis indefinitely. Even assuming that the service rendered by the respondent during the pendency of the writ petition should not be counted even then the very fact that it was not thought necessary to dispense with the service of the respondent and the fact of non- consideration of the recommendations as mentioned hereinabove by the School Board for over five long years by itself indicates that his service during these years cannot be said to be merely on voluntary basis and an employee who was allowed to continue in his service cannot be kept in suspended animation indefinitely. It is unfair to the respondent and an unwarranted privilege on the employer or keep the respondent indefinitely on a voluntary basis and thereafter at their sweet will and pleasure and irrespective of the length of uninterrupted service put in, unceremoniously terminate the employment under the refuge that the employment was on voluntary basis and the service of the respondent was never approved by the School Board The length of uninterrupted service, as in this case, confers on the respondent a right to continue in service which can be terminated by a procedure that can be held to be reasonable. In the case in hand the appointment of the respondent continued for long and in fact it is still continuing, It is therefore clear that the respondent who has been working in the school since November, 1975 continuously and uninterruptedly and who possess undisputable the requisite qualification for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher of the School must be allowed to continue in that service and only his service should be regularized it is unfair and unreasonable to remove the respondent who has been rendering service since long, more precisely about 14 years. Non-approval of the respondent as an Assistant Teacher of the School has serious consequence to follow. The respondent was all along under a pious hope that his service would be regularized. Besides the respondent has already devoted in the service of the school for such a long period that the said period of 14 years will be wholly wasted and the respondent may be rendered "Age Bar" for securing a job elsewhere. Thus the long spell of service rendered by the respondent has to be regularised by the School Board. It would be quite unreasonable unfair and unjust now to treat the respondent as a teacher giving voluntary service. Thus the long spell of service rendered by the respondent has to be regularised by the School Board. It would be quite unreasonable unfair and unjust now to treat the respondent as a teacher giving voluntary service. As the records show that the respondent was allotted by the School authorities to render service as an Assistant Teacher continuously since November, 1975 with the knowledge of the School Board in the permanent vacancy caused due to a retirement of an Assistant Teacher in the School and that the School Authorities mainly carried on with the respondent for a long time and now the School Board or the School Authorities cannot turn round and tell the respondent that his service was never approved by them and he was working purely on voluntary basis. In my opinion this is a worst kind of exploitation which an employer can ever indulge in. 13. In view of my findings made hereinabove I am not at all impressed by the argument of the learned Advocate for the School Board that since the respondent was appointed purely on voluntary basis and his appointment was not approved by them, there was no question of regularization of his service by the School Board. As a matter of fact, on completion of about fourteen years of continuous service in the School and non-consideration of the recommendations made by the authorities of the State and the Head Teacher of the School to absorb the Respondent as an Assistant Teacher of the School, there is no other alternative but to direct that the service of the Respondent should be regularized. 14. For the reasons stated above, I dispose of the appeal by giving the following directions: i). I affirm the judgment and order of the learned Judge under Appeal so far as the question of regularization of service of the Respondent is concerned. ii). I direct the School Board or the Director of Primary Education, West Bengal as the case may be, to take steps to regularize the service of the respondent as an Assistant Teacher of the School from the date the School Board or the Director of Primary Education, West Bengal as the case may be) fixes after giving a personal hearing to the Respondent and after passing a reasoned order, in accordance with law. Such consideration by the concerned authority for fixing a date of regularisation of service of the respondent must be within two months from date. iii). The District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education) South 24-Parganas and the Director of Primary Education are also directed 10 pay salary and other emoluments from the date of regularisation of service of the respondent fixed by the concerned authority in accordance with the prescribed scale of pay within two month from such date. Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. N.P. Singh, C. J.: I agree. Appeal disposed of by giving certain directions.