JUDGMENT Sinha, J. On the oral prayer made by Mr. Roy, Ad-hoc Committee, District Primary School Council, 24-Parganas, South, is impleaded as party in the writ petition as also in the appeal. Mr. Mitra appearing with Mr. Halder has no objection to the said prayer and accepts notice on behalf of newly added respondent. 2. The appeal and the contempt application, with the consent of parties, were taken up for hearing and arc being disposed of at this stage, by this common judgment. 3. This appeal is directed against an order dated 31.7.81 passed by B. C. Roy, J. (as His Lordship then was) whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellant herein together with another person who was petitioner No.2, had been disposed of in the following terms : "The grievance of the petitioner is that they have been appointed as teachers in the school in question and approval has been sought for yet the respondents did not take any step and no other approval was accorded to them and as such they did not receive any payment whatsoever. It appears that the school has been recognised. Now the question that requires to be considered is that since it is clear from the averments made in the supplementary affidavit that those petitioners are not organizer teachers working since the inception of the school their appointment may be approved provided the teacher pupil ratio permits such appointment taking into consideration the number of approved teachers already working there. In that view of the matter like D.I. of Schools, Primary Education, 24-Parganas is hereby directed to consider and dispose of as expeditiously as possible the case of these two petitioners in respect of their claim for approval as primary teachers in accordance with law. The D. I. of Schools will consider the dispose of the matter not later than eight weeks from today." 4. The D. I. of Schools will consider the dispose of the matter not later than eight weeks from today." 4. In the appeal, an application for injunction was filed, and a Division Bench comprising of then Chief Justice S.C. Ghose and R. N. Pyne, J. (as Their Lordships then were) by an order dated 1.3.82 directed :- “Let a rule issue calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why, pending the disposal of the appeal, they should not be restrained by an order of injunction from giving any new appointment in the petitioners school without giving approval to the petitioners' post as teachers in the school concerned or such other or further order or orders made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. Ad-interim injunction, as prayed for, is granted." 5. It is stated that the said interim order is still continuing. A contempt application has been filed as the Council in the meantime has allegedly granted appointment to Pulak Bhattacharya from death in harness category, to Sm. Sovana Dutta as Head Teacher and to Sm. Arati Gupta as the appointments have been made on 21.4.97, 12.5.97 and on 19.5.97 respectively. During pendency of this appeal, another development has occurred, namely, the writ petitioner No.2 withdrew from the appeal, whereafter, as he was not appointed, he filed another writ application for his absorption, and thereafter, .he has been appointed. The grievance of the sole appellant now is that keeping in view the fact that he had been appointed in the year 1975, in a regular vacancy, he should have been absorbed in view of the circulars then prevailing. It must also be placed on record that when the petitioner No.1 was appointed, the matter of recruitment was governed by Bengal Rural Primary Education Act, 1930, and the Rules framed thereunder. However, in the year 1973, the legislature of the State of West Bengal enacted West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973. In exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 106(1) of the said Act, the State of West Bengal framed Rules known as Recruitment and Leave Rules in the year 1991. The said Act and the Rules have come into force. Admittedly, the respondent Council was constituted with effect from 11.3.94. Despite the same, the Council had not been impleaded as party respondent in this appeal. 6. The said Act and the Rules have come into force. Admittedly, the respondent Council was constituted with effect from 11.3.94. Despite the same, the Council had not been impleaded as party respondent in this appeal. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner in the contempt matter against the alleged contemner/respondent No.3, namely, the Chairman of the Council is that all appointments have been made despite his knowledge about the aforementioned order dated 1.3.82 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The said fact has been denied and disputed by the said contemner by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that apart from the fact that allegations made in the contempt application are denied and disputed, as the Council was not a party either at the point of time when the said order was passed nor could have been impleaded as party as the Council has come into being on and from 11.3.94, it will not be prudent on the part of this Court to initiate any proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act against the said contemner and/or to pass an order of punishment. The contempt application is, therefore, disposed of and the Rule issued is discharged. 8. So far as the order under appeal is concerned, we are of the opinion that although the leave and recruitment rules had not come into force when the order was passed, keeping in view the fact that the question as to whether the appellant herein had been appointed against a regular vacancy, or not, must fall for consideration by the appropriate authority. Such a consideration should not only be made keeping in view the law as was prevailing at the relevant time, but also keeping in view the fact that the respondent Council itself has now appointed the writ petitioner No.2, Kajal Bhattacharya. It is true that such an appointment had been made in terms of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, but it is also equally true that unless and until there exists any statutory interdict, an order passed by this Court should also be applied to a case of a person who had not been a party in this regard. 9. 9. In this view of the matter, we dispose of this appeal by directing the newly added respondent to consider the 'case of the appellant herein for approval of his appointment keeping in view the law as it was prevailing at the relevant point of time as also in view of the subsequent event, namely, appointment of the aforementioned Kajal Bhattacharya. Such an order be passed at an early date and preferably within 2 weeks from the date of communication of this order. It will also be open to the authorities concerned to consider the question of seniority of the appellant. 10. The appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observation. 11. Xerox certified copy of the order be supplied on priority basis. Let plain copy of operative portion of the judgment countersigned by Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to learned Counsel for the appellant, on usual undertaking. Ansari, J. : I agree.