Judgment JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, J. 1. The scope of final disposal of the writ petition is very limited. 2. The old Rule 3D under the appointment of leave rules and conditions of service is as follows : "Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 3, rule 3A or rule 3B, but subject to the provision of rule 3C, a qualified person serving as an organiser-teacher in a primary school, ever since that school was established may be appointed, with the prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, as an assistant teacher of the school at the time it is granted recognition." 3. This has been substituted by the new rule vide notification No.731-Edn.(P)/9A-10/79 dated 11.9.80. 4. Under the old rules the Organiser Teachers of the Primary Schools were entitled to have appointments in the concerned school with prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal. 5. The moot point of controversy is whether the Organiser Teacher will be entitled to get the service irrespective of the recognition of the school or with the recognition of the school prior to new rule 3D or not. 6. To that extent we reported judgments were cited before this Court : (1) One is reported in 1995 CWN 754 (Chairman Ad hoc Committee vs. Jitendra Nath Chatterjee & Ors.) and (2) Another is reported in 1997 (1) CLJ 165 (West Bengal Board of Secondary Education vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. with other analogous cases.). 7. The above noted cases were highlighted by the petitioners' Senior Counsel Mr. Ashoke Banerjee as well as ld. Senior Counsels of the main contesting respondents Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Board and Mr. A.P. Sarkar, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for various District Primary Councils as well as Mr. Robi Lal Moitra, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for separate various other Councils. 8. Reliance can be given, as argued at 'length, on the two paragraphs of the judgments. One is paragraph 10 of the first judgment and the other one is paragraph 260 of the second judgment which are quoted hereunder accordingly : "Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration we direct the organisers of the school in question to file an application in the prescribed manner for recognition of the school before the District Primary School Council within six weeks from today. If any such application is filed, the District Primary School shall get the school inspected within one month from the date of making of such application and thereafter an appropriate order in accordance with law shall be passed in respect of recognition of the school in question within one month from the date of holding the inspection. As observed earlier, now there is no question of approving the appointment of any organiser teacher under the changed circumstances, if the school in question is recognised, it will be open to any organiser teacher to apply her/his name to be included in the panel to be prepared in accordance with the provisions in the Rules. If any such application for inclusion of name in the panel is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law." "260. However, there cannot 'be any doubt whatsoever that view of our findings aforementioned in cases where schools had been recognised prior to coming into force of new Rule 3D, the organiser teachers had derived a right to be considered for appointment and that they having acquired such a right were entitled to be considered in terms of the circular letters existing at the relevant time and as such the petitioners, thus had been deprived of their right for a long time, the respective District Primary School Councils are hereby directed to consider those cases and consider their cases for appointment in terms of the old Rule 3D and the circulars existing at the relevant point of time and they were suitably qualified therefor. If in any such case interview has already been held, appointment may be made on the basis of such interview." 9. Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the Board contended that in the case of regularisation of service of the organiser teachers following are the parameters : (a) school should be recognised prior to the cut off date i.e. 11.9.80, when the new Rule came into force; (b) the organiser teacher should be working from the date of establishment of the schools; (c) requisite qualification of teachers; (d) consideration of respective cases. 10. Mr. Sarkar virtually adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Mukherjee, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Board on that score but further added question of locus standi of the petitioners in moving the writ petition. 11. Besides the above questions Mr. 10. Mr. Sarkar virtually adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Mukherjee, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Board on that score but further added question of locus standi of the petitioners in moving the writ petition. 11. Besides the above questions Mr. Sarkar also agitated the question that there should be pleadings in respect of the subject matter but the same is unfounded in the present writ petition. Mere reliance are given in respect of collective' annexure being several sheets of the names and locations of the schools, names of the organizer teachers, dates of recognition of the schools etc. but even to that extent, no averment is made. Mr. Sarkar relied upon a judgment being AIR 1988 SC 2181 (Bharat Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors.) Head Notes 'C' and paragraph 13 therein on that score. 12. Mr. Sarkar has pointed out the paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the writ petition which deals with point of legitimate expectation with very limited submissions with regard to the recognition of the organiser teachers in respect of the school. Under such circumstances, the subject matter is being unfounded in the pleading cannot be taken into account by this court as absolute. 13. According to me there is a difference in between no evidence and some evidence. If some evidence in the case is available either in the pleading and/or in the annexures of the writ petition, such writ petition cannot be thrown out and the ratio of the Head Note 'C' of the Supreme Court judgment does not speak for the same. 14. That apart Mr. Sarkar has also pointed out that the petitioners' organisation has no locus standi to initiate the proceedings. 15. Mr. Asok Banerjee, ld. Senior Counsel, on the other hand, in reply stated that point of representation in the writ petition was not taken by the respondent at the threshold. On the basis of the interim order effect was given by some of the authorities admittedly. Therefore, raising of question of locus standi is futile attempt. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that' point of representation by the Association can be taken at this juncture. 16. On the basis of the interim order effect was given by some of the authorities admittedly. Therefore, raising of question of locus standi is futile attempt. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that' point of representation by the Association can be taken at this juncture. 16. According to me so far the question of locus standi is concerned, the same cannot be challenged at this stage when the writ jurisdiction was invoked long back and an order was passed by the court on which different respondents have already acted upon. Therefore, that question is redundant. 17. Mr. Robilal Moitra, in fact, took his defence by showing paragraphs 87, 88, 103 and 124 of the judgment reported in 1997 (1) CLJ 165 and contended that the organiser teachers have no absolute independent right but right for consideration. However, other points are similar to above. 18. Mr. Banerjee has tried to develop his case by saying that the organiser teachers are under the zone of consideration and the authority have no other alternative but to give appointments taking into account on the qualifications available at the relevant point of time. 19. I am of the view that since I am not inclined to consider the merit but to send the subject matter in issue for, consideration by the respondents/District Primary School Councils, there is no question of scrutiny of those questions. Moreover, there is no challenge as to the question of ultra vires of the Acts and Rules before the Court. 20. Under these circumstances, I direct that the concerned District Primary School Councils to consider the representations of the writ petitioners within the extended period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of the order, within such time period first four weeks are provided for making application from the date of communication of the order and the remaining eight weeks are provided for the respective Council for consideration. Such consideration will be made by giving opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order. For the purpose of effective adjudication a copy of the writ petition may be treated as representation. 21. For the purpose of representation the refused candidates can also participate by making further representations but these applications have already been disposed of there is no necessity of further consideration. Irrespective of personal hearing scrutiny of candidature will also be made in respect of the aggrieved parties. 21. For the purpose of representation the refused candidates can also participate by making further representations but these applications have already been disposed of there is no necessity of further consideration. Irrespective of personal hearing scrutiny of candidature will also be made in respect of the aggrieved parties. 22. In the above premises the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, as aforesaid, all interim applications rendered infructuous. 23. All affidavits and written notes of argument filed before this Court be kept with the records. 24. If an urgent xerox certified copy of the order is applied for, the same be supplied to the applicant within seven days from the date of putting in the requisites. Writ petition is disposed of.