JUDGMENT : - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the Writ Petitioner, Kuwar Bahadur Shukla @ Kuwar Bahadur, for regularisation of his service as Assistant Teacher In Jawarharlal Nehru Vidyapith (Boys) i.e. Junior High School, respondent No.5 The Writ Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement In Amrita Bazar Patrika dated 27th December, 1987 submitted an application to the respondent No 5, Jawarharlal Nehru Vidyapith (Boys) for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher against a post of B.Sc. (Pure), B.Ed. Subsequently the School Authority, had taken an Interview wherein the Writ Petitioner was successful and therefore, he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher In the respondent No. 5's School. The School Authority has Issued the appointment letter vide Annexure ‘A’ to the supplementary affidavit and asked him to joint in the said post. Accordingly, the petitioner has joined as an Assistant Teacher against a permanent sanctioned post since 5th April. 1988 and was working as such at least till 1991. But the Secretary of the School without any adequate reason did not permit the petitioner to work as an Assistant Teacher from October 1991. Therefore, he Sent number of letters to the Secretary of the School as well as submitted a report to the Officer-In-Charge, Ekbalpur Police Station for allowing him to function as an Assistant Teacher. But when all such attempts have been proved abortive, he filed the present Writ Petition. 2. During, the pendency of the case this Court directed the District Inspector of Schools to conduct an enquiry and to report whether the petitioner was in service as an Assistant Teacher Ira respondent No 5's School. The District Inspector of Schools conducted as enquiry where be found that the petitioner was not an employee of the School but he was one of the employees of Jawarharlal Nehru Vidyapith Trust for some period i.e. from 1989 to 1991. Since he was not appointed as an Assistant Teacher in respondent No. 5's School nor any such approval has bee a taken from the District Inspector of Schools, she Indicated In her report, vide Annexure 'A' to the supplementary affidavit affirmed on 31st March, 1993 that the service of the petitioner should not be regularized. 3. Mr. Since he was not appointed as an Assistant Teacher in respondent No. 5's School nor any such approval has bee a taken from the District Inspector of Schools, she Indicated In her report, vide Annexure 'A' to the supplementary affidavit affirmed on 31st March, 1993 that the service of the petitioner should not be regularized. 3. Mr. P.K. Drolia, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that Ira this case the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher which is evident from the appointment letter, Annexure 'A' to the supplementary affidavit against a permanent post though on probation for a period of two years. But the letter of the Headmaster which bas been enclosed to the Writ Petition. As Annexure 'C' would reveal that the petitioner bad been working from 5th April, 1988 till 4.5.90, i.e. the date of Issuance of the letter. Annexure 'C'. The petitioner in his letter to the Police which is marked as Annexure 'D' has claimed to have been working as an Assistant Teacher till at least 4.10. 91 whereafter the Secretary and other persons in the management did not allow the petitioner to work as usual. Mr. Drolia has further contended that since his appointment was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools, the School attendance of the Writ Petitioner was taken to a separate book but not in the regular register. Therefore, when the District inspector of Schools inspected the School under the direction of the Court, there was no notice given to the Writ Petitioner so that tile letter could have attended the School during enquiry and highlighted how his attendance was not taken in the regular attendance register. 4. It has been stressed by the petitioner that the School was recognised under Grants-in-Aid Scheme from 1989 but he was appointed by the management from 5th April, 1988. Therefore, the School Authority with an oblique motive to accommodate some one else other Chin the Writ Petitioner left out his name while recommending for approval to the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner in support of his contention has enclosed the School magazines as well as other photographs wherein his photograph is Included among the teaching staff of the School. The petitioner in support of his contention has enclosed the School magazines as well as other photographs wherein his photograph is Included among the teaching staff of the School. The stand taken by the management in course of enquiry by the District Inspector of Schools does not reflect the true picture in has much as had the petitioner been an employee of Jawarharlal Nehru Vidyapith Trust the appointment letter asking the petitioner to join as an Assistant Teacher In the respondent No.5's School vide Annexure 'A' to the supplementary affidavit would not have been should by the respondent No.5. 5. It is significant to note that notwithstanding service of notice of the Writ Petition upon the respondent No.5 no step was takes by the management to contest the case. They have not denied the allegations of the Writ Petition Inter alia by stating that the petitioner was only an employee or the Trust but not of the Schools. Therefore, in the above background, the report describing the Writ Petitioner to be an employee or the Trust appears to be not correct. 6. Since the Writ Petitioner was working till 4th October, 1991, the question now arises is whether the District Inspector of Schools could be directed to regularise his service even in the absence of approval of his appointment. Admittedly, the Writ Petitioner was appointed at a time when there was no recognition given to the School under the Grants-in-Aid Scheme and the management was free to appoint teachers out of their own choice. The petitioner pursuant to the advertisement, appeared in the Interview and was selected by the management and subsequently appointed as an Assistant Teacher against a permanent Post, he cannot be deprived of his right to resume duty as an Assistant Teacher without taking any disciplinary action by the management. Admittedly, no disciplinary action was taken by the management, respondent No.5, rather the Head Teacher of the School certified about the good conduct of the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, in the background he could not be asked not to attend School at the mercy of the Secretary. 7. In this connection I rely upon a decision of this Court in the case of (1) Nirmal Kumar Jana v. District Inspector of School, (S.E.); Calcutta and Other reported in 1996 (1) Calcutta Law times (H. C.) page 101. Therefore, in the background he could not be asked not to attend School at the mercy of the Secretary. 7. In this connection I rely upon a decision of this Court in the case of (1) Nirmal Kumar Jana v. District Inspector of School, (S.E.); Calcutta and Other reported in 1996 (1) Calcutta Law times (H. C.) page 101. It has been held by S.R. Misra, J. (as be then was) "The order of termination was in violation of Rule 28 of the Rule 9 which provides an opportunity before an order of termination is passed. Once there are allegations of misconduct and admittedly when the matter was examined by the Director of School Education on reference by the learned Single Judge there when the materials were placed, it was found as a fact by the Director of School Education that there were allegations of misconducts concocted by the management against the petitioner and as such the order of termination cannot be justified for the reason stated on behalf of the management that it was a simple Order of termination and there was no sanctioned post and as such the petitioner is not entitled to relief is misconceived. " 8. It is strange to note even in this case the management has not issued any termination notice to the Writ Petitioner. Assuming he was the employee of the Trust, admittedly he was not allowed to work from 5th October, 1991 in that event what prevents either the Trust or the School Authority to Issue an order of termination. I found there bas been no order of termination of the petitioner's service. 9. Mr. Drolia has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment reported in (2) 1985 (1) CHN page 117 in the case of the President–cum-Secretary, Sallendra Sircar Vidyalaya v. prafulla Kumar Samajdar & ors. It has been held as follows :- "The Administrator of the appellant School appointed the respondent after his retirement from Government Service as Headmaster of the School on probation for two years and joined the School on August 1. 1980. He was to retire on July 31, 1982 but before that he wrote to the President requesting him to confirm him and extend his service for one year. The President by his letter dated Jul, 27, 1982 Informed him that the probationary period could not be extended and his superannuation would be on August 1, 1982. 1980. He was to retire on July 31, 1982 but before that he wrote to the President requesting him to confirm him and extend his service for one year. The President by his letter dated Jul, 27, 1982 Informed him that the probationary period could not be extended and his superannuation would be on August 1, 1982. On a Writ Petition having been moved by the respondent the learned Trial Judge set aside the order of the President and directed the School Authority not to give any effect to the same. Hence this appeal. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 28 of 1969 Rule 8 provides that a teacher appointed on probation shall be confirmed on the expiry of the probationary period unless an order to the contrary is issued at least, six weeks before the expiry of the said period. It was contended that sub-rule (7) of Rule 28 of 1969 Rules will not apply 18 view of Rule 32 which provides that nothing In 1969 Rules will apply to a Sponsored Institution and the School in question has been declared to be Sponsored institution. Although the School was declared a Sponsored Institution with effect November 30, 1979. It will not effect the vested right which the respondent No.1 had acquired with regard to his confirmation as provided in sub-rule (7) of Rule 28 of the 1969 Rules the respondent No.1 joined the post of Headmaster on August 1, 1980, long before the School was declared a Sponsored Institution. Therefore since the Managing Committee did not issue any order not to confirm the respondent No.1 six months before the expiry of the order the Managing Committee bas the power to extend the service of a teacher beyond the age of superannuation. If the committee does not recommend the extension In case of a teacher, the committee in to record the reason therefore in the instant case the committee did not record any reasons for not granting any extension. The very fact that the respondent No.1 was appointed on probation and not appointed temporarily, Implied the question of confirmation There is no reason why the services of the respondent No 1 should not be extended if he is physically fit and mentally alert." 10. The very fact that the respondent No.1 was appointed on probation and not appointed temporarily, Implied the question of confirmation There is no reason why the services of the respondent No 1 should not be extended if he is physically fit and mentally alert." 10. In this case although the petitioner was appointed as all Assistant Teacher on probation for a period of two years against a permanent post but he has been allowed to work from 1988 to 1991 even after expiry of probation period. Therefore, In this background. It is deemed that the School Authority has extended the service beyond the probation period. The question is, therefore, whether the appointment of the petitioner would be approved by the District Inspector of Schools since he was appointed before recognition of the School, his appointment should have been considered and, approved by the District Inspector of Schools and before such approval no such permission from the District Inspector of Schools was needed Since the appointment of the Writ Petitioner was against a permanent post, his service should have been regularized and due approval ought to have been given for his appointment. The District Inspector of Schools is also a party in this proceeding but curious enough none has appeared on his behalf. 11. I find the Writ Petitioner was validly appointed against a permanent post as on Assistant Teacher In Science Group and he was working from 1988 till 1991 but he was unceremoniously stopped from working. In the said School by the Secretary of the School keeping in view or some other things. Therefore, the action or the Secretary cannot be approved particular, when he did not prefer to contest the case. 12. Thus, I hereby direct the School Authorities, namely, the respondent No.5 to allow the Writ Petitioner to normally function as Assistant Teacher within a period or eight weeks from today. The petitioner shall be given his due salary as soon as he joins in the said post. Since be has not worked for all these years he cannot claim any salary for the Post. The District Inspector of School is also directed to approve the service of the Writ Petitioner ail Assistant Teacher against any vacant post If available in the School within a period of three months from date. 13. Since be has not worked for all these years he cannot claim any salary for the Post. The District Inspector of School is also directed to approve the service of the Writ Petitioner ail Assistant Teacher against any vacant post If available in the School within a period of three months from date. 13. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of, but in the circumstances without casts. Xerox certified copy of the order, if applied for by the petitioner, the same may be supplied to him one week after long vacation.