JUDGMENT M.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioners have sought for recognition of the Bagichabari Prathamik Vidyalaya as primary school and for directions to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for approval as teaching and non-teaching staff of the said institution. 2. The petitioner No.1 is said to have joined the said school on 3.1.1972, the petitioner No.2 on 2.5.1972, the petitioner No.3 on 3.10.1972, the petitioner No.4 on 18.9.1975, and petitioner No.5 on 18.9.1975 and petitioner No.6 joined subsequently as Assistant Teacher, the petitioner No.7 joined as a non-teaching staff of the said school. 3. It is stated that several representations had been made by the petitioners to respondent No.4 for recognition of the said school and also for giving approval to the appointments of the petitioners and despite the same, as no action had been taken thereon, the petitioners have filed the above writ application seeking the relief as prayed for. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said school has been working very sincerely and that the case of the school has been strongly recommended for recognition by the local M.L.A. and eminent people. 5. Mr. A. B. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated before court the various averments made and the contentions raised in the writ application in support of the relief as prayed. 6. Mr. Rathindranath Bhaduri alongwith Mr. Anjan Chakraborty, learned counsels appearing for the District Primary School Council, Malda relying upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in West Bengal Board of Secondary Education vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 1997 (1) CLJ 165, submitted that all the contentions raised in the instant writ application as also the various judgments upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners have been considered by the Division Bench in the said case and in the light of the said "judgment, the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ application nor can the relief as prayed can be granted by this Court. 7. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench, cited supra, would show that all the contentions as have been raised in the instant writ application have been considered by the Division Bench and various judgments of this court as also of the Apex Court have been considered. 7. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench, cited supra, would show that all the contentions as have been raised in the instant writ application have been considered by the Division Bench and various judgments of this court as also of the Apex Court have been considered. The matter in my view is, therefore, concluded by the said judgment of the Division Bench. 8. In paragraph 39 of the said judgment, the Division Bench observed that consequent upon the amendment to the 1973 Act which came into force with effect from 1st February, 1996, there is no provision for grant of fresh recognition to any institution. It may be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the said judgment which reads as under: "In view of the aforementioned amendment at present no provision for grant of fresh recognition to any institution imparting primary education exists although the right to withdraw such recognition subsists." 9. As regards the locus of the teachers to maintain an application for grant of recognition, the Division Bench held as under: "Furthermore, teachers have no independent right to file an application for recognition. It is only the Managing Committee of the School concerned which could file such an application. In that view of the matter, it is not for this Court to go into an academic question inasmuch as it is now well known that the Courts unnecessarily do not enter into any academic question. In view of our findings aforementioned that organiser teachers did not have any right to be the year 1980, the purported challenge of 1991 Rules must be held to have no substance." and in paragraph 214, it was further held as follows; "The interpretation of the provisions of a statute requires to be decided on the touch stone of the constitutional provisions and the same are required to be considered keeping in view the existing situation and the prevailing circumstances in the society. The only question raised is that by reason of the Amending Act, the right of recognition of any institution has been taken away. As indicated hereinbefore, the petitioners are organiser teachers. Even the organisations which have filed these writ applications have taken up the cause of the organiser teachers. They had no independent right to file an application for recognition nor recognition could be claimed by any school as a matter of right. As indicated hereinbefore, the petitioners are organiser teachers. Even the organisations which have filed these writ applications have taken up the cause of the organiser teachers. They had no independent right to file an application for recognition nor recognition could be claimed by any school as a matter of right. In that view of the matter ex facie the petitioners have no locus standi to question the vires of the said Act in so far as it has been held hereinbefore that they have lost their right to be appointed as organiser teachers in terms of Old Rule 3D after the New Rule 3D came into force in the year 1980. Even in Jitendra Nath Chatterjee (supra), the Division Bench gave direction to apply for recognition within the time stipulated therein only to the 'Organisers of the School' and not to the 'Organiser Teachers." 10. For the reasons aforestated, the instant writ application is liable to be dismissed in limini and is accordingly dismissed. Later 11. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order be supplied to the ld. counsels appearing for the parties within 7 days, if the same is applied for. Writ application dismissed.