Judgment :- (1.) Considering the nature of the case and after hearing the learned Advocates of the parties, we are of the view that it will be proper for this Court to dispose of the appeals finally. Accordingly, we take up the matter after dispensing with the filing of informal paper books. The matter may be treated as on days list and the same is taken up for hearing in presence of the both the parties. (2.) The subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal is an order dated 29.08.06 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 16008 (W) of 2004. Challenging the said order, two appeals were preferred one by Chairman, West Bengal Central School Service Commission and Ors and another by State of West Bengal. Accordingly, both the matters are taken up analogously for final disposal. (3.) On an application filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 for appointment in the post of assistant teacher in Geography, she was selected and empanelled by the Regional School Service Commission (SR). She was, therefore, recommended for appointment by the Commission to Gopal Kata Jelepara High School in the District of South 24-Parganas. Pursuant to such recommendation, appointment letter was issued and the petitioner joined her place of posting on 20th February, 2004. (4.) The petitioner, thereafter, moved a writ application before this Court being W.P. No. 5344 (W) of 2004 and this Court by an order dated 20.05.04 directed the Chairman, West Bengal School Service Commission to consider and dispose of the petitioners representation after giving her an opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order. (5.) It may be mentioned here that the petitioner after joining her place of posting made a representation to the concerned authority praying for transfer to a place nearer to her residence, which would be suitable for her. Pursuant to direction of this Court, her representation was considered and disposed of by the Commission and by an order dated 26.06.04, the same was rejected. (6.) The said order of rejection was challenged by the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 herein in W.P. No. 16008(W) of 2004. Pursuant to direction of this Court, her representation was considered and disposed of by the Commission and by an order dated 26.06.04, the same was rejected. (6.) The said order of rejection was challenged by the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 herein in W.P. No. 16008(W) of 2004. By an order dated 09.02.05, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the District Inspector of Schools (SE), South 24-Parganas to submit a report disclosing the vacancies of Assistant Teachers in Geography, which would be available within a radius of 20 Kilometers from the residence of the writ petitioner. Pursuant to such direction, a report was submitted by the District Inspector of Schools thereby mentioning the five vacancies. By the impugned order dated 29.08.06, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ application after receiving such report from the District Inspector of Schools and directed that out of five vacancies stated in the aforesaid report, the petitioner would choose any one and in terms of such selection, the District Inspector of Schools would direct the management of the chosen school to allow the petitioner to join therein. Challenging the said order dated 29.08.06, the present two appeals have been preferred before this Court. (7.) It is the contention of the learned Advocate of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner that the petitioner, after she was appointed in the post of assistant teacher, was transferred to a place, which is far away from her place of residence and being a lady, it was almost impossible for her to attend the said school from her residence. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 that the concerned authority should have considered the representation submitted by the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner sympathetically and should have given a place of posting in a school, which could be suitable for her. But, we are unable to accept such contention. In our considered view, nobody can claim such place of posting as a matter of right. (8.) The learerid Advocate appearing for the appellant submits by referring to the impugned order, from which it appears that the District Inspector of Schools was directed to give the petitioner a hearing to enable her to choose one of the five vacancies as mentioned in the report submitted by the District Inspector of Schools. (8.) The learerid Advocate appearing for the appellant submits by referring to the impugned order, from which it appears that the District Inspector of Schools was directed to give the petitioner a hearing to enable her to choose one of the five vacancies as mentioned in the report submitted by the District Inspector of Schools. It was further directed that after such hearing, the District Inspector of Schools would direct the Management of the school chosen by the writ petitioner to allow the petitioner to join the school as Assistant Teacher in the available vacancies by virtue of the said order. It is submitted by the learned Advocate of the appellant that such direction can never be passed by this Court. (9.) The learned Advocate of the appellant also refers to the provisions of Section 9 of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 which came into force from 1st November, 1997. Such provision reads as follows:-"Section 9. Effect of Recommendation of Commission: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, custom or usage to the contrary, appointments to the posts of Teachers in a school shall be made by the Managing Committee, by whatever name called, or by the ad hoc committee, or by the administrator, if any (where there is no Managing Committee), of that school on the recommendation of the Regional Commission having jurisdiction. (2) any appointment of a Teacher made on or after the commencement of this Act in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid and shall have no effect and the Teacher so appointed shall not be a Teacher within the meaning of Clause (p) of Section 2." (10.) Referring to the aforesaid provisions, it is submitted by the learned Advocate of the appellant submits that in such cases, District Inspector of Schools has nothing to do and power is vested with the School Service Commission. The learned Trial Judge by the impugned order, has given a power to the District Inspector of Schools, which is beyond the statute. (11.) We have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. We have perused the relevant provisions of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order suffers from gross irregularity. (11.) We have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. We have perused the relevant provisions of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order suffers from gross irregularity. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has empowered the District Inspector of Schools to exercise powers, which are not vested with him in the statute. We also find that the petitioner already joined her place of posting on 20th February, 2004. i.e., three years back. In such circumstances, there is no scope to consider her prayer for transfer at this stage. (12.) In such circumstances, we allow both the appeals , setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge in W.P. No. 16008 (W) of 2004 without any order as to costs and the writ application is, therefore, dismissed. (13.) The appeal and application are both disposed of. (14.) The learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 makes a prayer for stay of operation of this order, which is refused by this Court. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for may be given to parties on urgent basis.