Judgment : JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J (1) THE petitioner in this writ petition dated September 13, 2006 is aggrieved by the decision of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly dated January 16, 2006, the relevant portion whereof is : "it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as part time teacher since 04. 2. 69 so his approval accorded since 1. 3. 80 is rightly done by the then District Inspector of Schools (SE); Hooghly vide memo No. 10609/jh-21 dated 6. 12. 82 after creation of the post in 4-Class junior High School in view of the letter issued by the then District inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly vide Memo No. 102 (S) dated 7. 3. 80 as there was no permanent post at the material point of time. " (2) AFTER sanctioning the setting up of senior basic schools for imparting education to the children in classes VI-VIII at the basic pattern, the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal issued an order no. 472 dated June 24, 1963 giving the instructions to be followed for proper functioning of the schools. It was mentioned that there would be two craft teachers in schools with classes VI-VIII. The craft teachers were to be appointed on part-time basis at a fixed pay of Rs. 60/-per month. It was ordered that the district inspectors of schools would approve the appointment, and that a school (new or converted) would not be regarded as a senior basic school unless the qualified craft teachers were appointed. Then under his memo No. 3245 dated July 1, 1965 the director issued the guiding principles of running senior basic schools and senior basic sections of the complete basic schools. The principles were revised in 1967. The mandatory requirement of keeping two craft teachers by a senior basic school with classes VI-VIII was reiterated with the addition that after the appointment of the staff in the senior basic school within a week the papers including attested copies of certificates, a resolution of the managing committee, etc. in the prescribed manner should be submitted to the director for obtaining approval. It was reiterated in the memo that a school (new or converted) should not be regarded as a senior basic school unless qualified craft instructors were appointed. in the prescribed manner should be submitted to the director for obtaining approval. It was reiterated in the memo that a school (new or converted) should not be regarded as a senior basic school unless qualified craft instructors were appointed. (3) AT the material point of time present-day Sahaganj Rashbehari sakti Samity High School in Hooghly was a senior basic school with classes VI-VIII. In compliance with the orders of the authority obliging the school to appoint craft teachers, the authority of that institute initiated a recruitment process, and in that the petitioner successfully participated. By a letter dated February 1, 1969 the authority of that institute appointed him as a craft teacher (part-time) subject to the approval of the district inspector of schools. He was appointed with effect from February 4, 1969. He was to get pay according to scale approved by the government. A copy of that appointment letter dated February 1, 1969 was sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Hooghly. It is nobodys case that the petitioners appointment as craft teacher in the institute was not approved by the competent authority. In the absence of any case that his appointment as craft teacher was not approved, it is to be presumed that his appointment was approved, because not only he continued to receive pay at the scale approved by the government, but he also remained in service till he was made a whole-time teacher in the following facts and circumstances. (4) BY a letter dated September 18, 1969 the director of public instruction asked the institute to fill proforma enclosed with the letter in connection with conversion of the institute into a junior high school with classes V-VIII. It was stated in the letter that the decision of the government to convert the senior basic schools into junior high schools was awaited. By a letter dated November 12, 1969 the director informed the institute that in terms of government orders No. 1764 dated August 22, 1969 and No. 247 dated September 30, 1969 the institute would stand converted into a junior high school with the system of grant-in-aid becoming effective from January 1, 1970. By a letter dated November 12, 1969 the director informed the institute that in terms of government orders No. 1764 dated August 22, 1969 and No. 247 dated September 30, 1969 the institute would stand converted into a junior high school with the system of grant-in-aid becoming effective from January 1, 1970. It was further stated in the letter that the in-service members of the teaching and non-teaching staff would continue as usual with the exception that the new appointment of headmaster possessing certain qualifications should not be made in the institute after its conversion. As to the posts of craft teachers, it was said that the posts lying vacant should be treated as abolished, and that the teachers already in service would hold their posts as personal to them until they would vacate the posts by reason of death, resignation, retirement, etc. It was further stated that the craft rooms would be converted into rooms for holding class V, and that the serving craft teachers who would be retained would teach the class V students. Thus the petitioner became a whole-time teacher in the converted junior high school. Though he was to teach only the class V students, since he was a graduate, his service was utilized by engaging him for teaching students of all the classes, i. e. V-VIII. (5) WHILE appointments of the other serving teachers of the erstwhile senior basic school were approved by the director of public instruction by his order dated September 10, 1970, nothing was said regarding approval of the petitioners appointment. Appointments of the other teachers were approved from the respective dates of their joining the senior basic school. After years an order was issued on February 21, 1980. By that the district inspector of schools appointed the petitioner as work education teacher in the institute beyond sanctioned strength with effect from March 1, 1980. It was stated that the petitioner, a matric passed part-time craft teacher, would work as a whole-time assistant teacher of work education until further order subject to the condition that the post would be abolished on his vacating it due to retirement, death, or resignation. The petitioner protested, and as a result, the district inspector of schools reconsidered the matter, and in supersession of the order dated February 21, 1980 issued the order dated March 7, 1980. The petitioner protested, and as a result, the district inspector of schools reconsidered the matter, and in supersession of the order dated February 21, 1980 issued the order dated March 7, 1980. In this order he said that the petitioner was being absorbed as a whole time teacher within the sanctioned strength with effect from March 1, 1980, and that he would perform duties as a work education teacher and draw pay in the trained graduate scale. It was once again said that the post would be treated as personal to the petitioner and would be abolished as and when he would vacate it on retirement, death, resignation or otherwise. The petitioner once again protested. Though he continued to make representations seeking approval of his appointment in the junior high school with effect from his initial date of appointment, i. e. February 4, 1969, since similar benefit had been given to the other teachers working in the erstwhile senior basic school, the authorities did not resolve the problem, and rather kept it alive as appears from a decision of the district inspector of schools dated November 24, 1997. (6) BY the decision dated November 24, 1997 the district inspector of schools approved the petitioners appointment in the institute with effect from February 4, 1969. The troubles really started from this stage. By an order dated August 3, 1998 the successor-in-office of the district inspector of schools directed that the order of his predecessor-in-office dated November 24, 1997 should not be acted upon until further order. The district inspector of schools who made the order dated August 3, 1998 directed the institute to submit the original of the letter of the director of public instruction dated November 12, 1969. Though, as submitted by counsel for the petitioner, the letter in question was produced by the institute, the district inspector of schools who made the order dated august 3, 1998 did not take any further step in the matter. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner moved this Court by filing Writ Petition no. 6040 (W) of 2001, which was disposed of by an order dated August 17, 2005 directing the district inspector of schools to give a reasoned decision in the matter. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner moved this Court by filing Writ Petition no. 6040 (W) of 2001, which was disposed of by an order dated August 17, 2005 directing the district inspector of schools to give a reasoned decision in the matter. This is how the impugned decision dated January 16, 2006 came to be given by another person who assumed the office as successor of the person who made the order dated August 3, 1998. The district inspector of schools who gave the impugned decision virtually set aside the decision of one of his predecessors-in-office dated November 24, 1997, and thus he proceeded a step further than the step taken by his predecessor-in-office who made the order dated August 3, 1998. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has taken out this writ petition. (7) THE district inspector of schools has affirmed an opposition (it is not in the case record, and a copy thereof has been produced by counsel for the petitioner who was served with it). The case of the district inspector of schools is this. With effect from March 1, 1980 the petitioner was appointed as a part-time craft teacher beyond the sanctioned strength. When order was made absorbing him as a whole-time teacher, he accepted it without any protest. Since his initial appointment was beyond the sanctioned strength, he is not entitled to claim any post facto approval with effect from February 4, 1969. His case is hit by promissory estoppel, and in any case, he cannot be permitted to turn around at a belated stage. (8) I think counsel for the petitioner is fully justified in saying that the district inspector of schools totally mis-directed himself. The initial appointment of the petitioner was to be governed by the orders of the director of public instruction dated June 24, 1963 and July 1, 1965. It is not the case of the district inspector of schools that those orders were not existing and applicable at the date the petitioner was appointed as a craft teacher (part time) in the institute that was a senior basic school at that point of time. As I have already pointed out, his appointment as such was to be approved, and there is nothing to show that that formality was not complied with. He continued in service and received pay in the scale approved by the government. As I have already pointed out, his appointment as such was to be approved, and there is nothing to show that that formality was not complied with. He continued in service and received pay in the scale approved by the government. Unless his appointment as craft teacher (part-time) was treated as approved and valid, the institute could not be considered a senior basic school at all, and as a result, it could not be converted into a junior high school by the authorities. Appointment of a craft teacher was a must. On these facts, there can be no doubt that his initial appointment in the institute as a craft teacher was quite within the sanctioned strength. It is therefore evident that by saying that the petitioners initial appointment as a craft teacher was beyond the sanctioned strength, the district inspector of schools demonstrated his total non-application of mind to the problem he was examining. (9) IN terms of order of the director of public instruction dated November 12, 1969 as a serving craft teacher in the senior basic school the petitioner was to continue in employment in the converted junior high school. He was to remain as a whole-time teacher in the converted junior high school with the qualification that he would teach only the class V students, and not of the other classes. He was not to be treated as a teacher of any particular subject, but as a whole-time teacher supposed to take only class V. Hence there was no question of his continuing in employment holding any post which was beyond the sanctioned strength. The post of a class V teacher stood virtually sanctioned by the order of the director of public instruction dated November 12, 1969, and it stood sanctioned with effect from January 1, 1970, from which date the grant-in-aid meant for the converted junior high school was to become effective. Till before January 1, 1970 there was no scope to treat him as a whole-time teacher meant for class V of the converted junior high school. Till before January 1, 1970 there was no scope to treat him as a whole-time teacher meant for class V of the converted junior high school. In spite of all these, the then director of public instruction, while approved the appointments of the other m (10) TO his appointment, instead of approving it, a colour of absorption was sought to be given on the ground that he was a matric passed part time craft teacher, -an approach vitiated by gross non-application of mind on the part of the district inspector of schools who issued the order dated February 21, 1980. However, the petitioners immediate protest yielded result for him to some extent. The district inspector of schools sought to amend the situation by issuing a further order dated March 7, 1980 absorbing him as a whole-time teacher in the converted junior high school with effect from March 1, 1980. Till such absorption he was treated as a part-time craft teacher, though in the order dated November 12, 1969 it had not been stated that he would be treated as such while continuing in employment in the converted junior high school. The district inspector of schools who issued the order dated March 7, 1980 went far beyond his jurisdiction and power by treating the petitioner as a part-time craft teacher in the converted junior high school, when as a matter of fact from the moment the order dated November 12, 1969 became effective, for all purposes he became a whole-time teacher in the converted junior high school, subject only to the qualification that he would be teaching the class V students. (11) BY issuing the order dated March 7, 1980 the district inspector of schools in reality wanted to utilize the petitioners services in the institute as a work education teacher obliged to teach all students of all classes. Being a graduate, as a matter of fact, he had been teaching the students of all the classes in the institute. He protested and his protests ultimately yielded results in 1997, when the district inspector of schools made the order dated November 24, 1997 approving his appointment with effect from February 4, 1969. Being a graduate, as a matter of fact, he had been teaching the students of all the classes in the institute. He protested and his protests ultimately yielded results in 1997, when the district inspector of schools made the order dated November 24, 1997 approving his appointment with effect from February 4, 1969. But then, a successors-in-office of the district inspector of schools quite unauthorizedly and without any jurisdiction sat in appeal over the order and went to the extent of virtually setting it aside as will appear from the decision impugned in the present writ petition. It is not the case that the successor-in-office, noticing some illegality in the order dated November 24, 1997, thought it appropriate to bring the matter to the notice of the director of school education, the appropriate authority in terms of the statutory management rules which came into force with effect from July 15, 1969. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that lawful benefits were denied to the petitioner, and that that was done by mindless decisions of one after another persons who came to hold the office of the district inspector of schools. This is a very disturbing aspect. In my Judgment, the petitioner was always entitled to be treated as a whole-time teacher in the converted junior high school, and hence the authorities were under the obligation to approve his appointment with effect from January 1, 1970 at which date the grant-in-aid in terms of the order dated November 12, 1969 became effective. (12) FOR these reasons, I allow this writ petition ordering as follows. The decisions dated January 16, 2006 and August 3, 1998 are hereby set aside. The order dated November 24, 1997 shall be deemed to be modified to the effect that the appointment of the petitioner shall be deemed to be approved as a whole-time teacher in the converted junior high school in terms of the order dated November 12, 1969 with effect from January 1, 1970. The respondents shall accordingly calculate all benefits and pay them with arrears to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The District Inspector of schools, Hooghly, the Director of School Education, West Bengal, and the principal Secretary, Education Department concerned shall remain wholly responsible for carrying out these directions. There shall be no order for costs. Petition allowed.