PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2000 passed by the learned Single judge whereby and whereunder the said learned Single Judge directed the concerned authority to regularise and approve the service of the writ petitioner against the regular vacancy from the date of his joining as the assistant Teacher in the concerned school. ( 2 ) IT has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the appointment of the writ petitioner is illegal and in clear violation of the rules for appointment. It has also been alleged on behalf of the appellant that the writ petitioner was appointed as an Additional Teacher of the concerned school by the managing Committee without having the requisite qualification for such appointment and without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority as required under the law. It has been specifically submitted on behalf of the appellant that at the time of appointment in the school, the said writ petitioner had no requisite qualification of training as required pursuant to the Government Notification dated 21" January, 1974. It has been categorically submitted on behalf of the appellant that the school authority appointed the writ petitioner/respondent in clear violation of the government Order No. 1614-Edn (P) dated 8/11/1974 as well as the subsequent Government Order No. 173-Edn (P) dated 31/1/1974. ( 3 ) MR. Tulsidas Maity, learned Counsel representing the appellant specifically urged before this Court that although the writ petitioner was appointed as an additional teacher but no additional post was sanctioned by the Director of School Education, West Bengal in the said school for the alleged increase of roll strength. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that at the time of appointment of the writ petitioner in the said school, there was no sanctioned vacant post and therefore, the Managing committee could not have appointed the writ petitioner in the said school as an Assistant Teacher. ( 4 ) REFERRING to the order of recognition dated 9th April, 1973 in respect of the school concerned, Mr. Maity submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Teacher in the said school in clear violation of the conditions mentioned in the said order of recognition. ( 4 ) REFERRING to the order of recognition dated 9th April, 1973 in respect of the school concerned, Mr. Maity submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Teacher in the said school in clear violation of the conditions mentioned in the said order of recognition. The learned Counsel of the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge should not have issued any direction regarding approval of the appointment and/or regularisation of the service of the writ petitioner since at the time of appointment of the said writ petitioner, all the three sanctioned approved posts were filled up and the writ petitioner was not appointed, therefore, against any sanctioned vacant post. Mr. Maity further submits that the school authority never requested the competent authority for granting prior approval regarding appointment of additional teacher due to increase of roll strength of the students and thus, the said school authority violated the specific condition for recognition apart from the several other Government orders operating in the field in this regard. ( 5 ) MR. Maity in support of his aforesaid arguments cited the following decisions of the Apex Court: 1. 2006 (4) SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors.) 2. 2005 (8) SCC 296 (State of West Bengal and Anr. vs. Alpana Roy and Ors.) 3. 2003 (3) SCC 374 (Ramakrishna Kamat and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (Para 7) 4. 2004 (7) SCC 112 (Umarani vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Ors. (Paras 39, 40 and 41) 5. 2004 (8) SCC 353 (Pankaj Gupta and Ors. vs. State of Jandk and Ors. (Para 6) 6. 2005 (1) SCC 639 (Mahendra L. Jain and Ors. vs. Indore Development authority and Ors.) (Para 19) 7. 2005 (4) SCC 209 (Binod Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. Ram Ashray Mahoto and Ors.) (Para 13 ). ( 6 ) MR. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned Counsel of the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner was duly appointed as the assistant teacher of the concerned school by the competent authority, namely, the Managing committee of the said school and the rules referred to and relied upon by the appellant being Memo No. 1614-Edn (P) dated 8/11/1974 cannot have any manner of application as the same was never given effect to. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. Chatterjee referred to an unreported judgment of this Hon'ble Court delivered by Satyabrata Sinha, J. (as His Lordship then was) in the case of Sri Bijoy Bahadur Singh vs. Mr. D. Ghosh and Ors. , C. R. No. 13081 (W) of 1979. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid judgment, various Government circulars and notifications including the aforesaid circular dated 8th November, 1974 was specifically considered. The said circular dated 8th November, 1974 was issued under Bengal Rural Primary Education Act, 1930, which was not applicable in Calcutta. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel of the writ petitioner submits that without amending the provisions of the said 1930 Act, the said circular dated 8th November, 1974 could not be made applicable in relation to the school situated within the town of Calcutta by issuing an executive instruction. ( 8 ) THE various issues raised in this appeal were also specifically considered by Satyabrata Sinha, J. (as His Lordship then was) while deciding the matter in the case of Sri Bijoy Bahadur Singh (supra) and the relevant extracts from the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: "the school in question even if had appointed the petitioner without obtaining prior approval, the same was not done in violation of any statutory provisions. The State could have only withdrawn the recognition of such school as no prior approval had taken. Keeping in view the subsequent circular the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to have been made in flagrant violation of any mere provision of a statute. It is true that by reason of the notification dated 11. 7. 1969 it was directed that the provisions of 1938 Act would apply mutatis mutandis to the schools situate in Calcutta but the said notification ex facie must be held to be illegal. The 1930 Act in no uncertain terms states that the said Act will not have any application in the town of Calcutta. Without amending the provisions of the said Act the provisions of the Act could not have been made applicable in relation of the schools situate within the town of Calcutta by reason of an executive instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Without amending the provisions of the said Act the provisions of the Act could not have been made applicable in relation of the schools situate within the town of Calcutta by reason of an executive instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . However, in the instant case at the relevant point of time when the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee having the requisite jurisdiction to appoint teacher, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the State. At the relevant time, no statutory order or statutory law governing the condition of service existed. As indicated hereinbefore, the administrative instruction had been issued in terms of the provision of the Education code which has been held to as save no force of law. Any appointment made in violation of administrative order may be an irregularity but the same is not an illegality so as to render the appointment void ab initio, a nullity and, thus, non est in the eye of law. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner even if Mr. Maiti's submission are accepted to be correct was at best made in violation of an administrative order and thus the same was not a nullity. " ( 9 ) THE appeal preferred from the aforesaid judgment delivered by satyabrata Sinha, J. was, however, dismissed by the Division Bench of this court presided over by U. C. Banerjee, J. by a detailed judgment dated 3rd july, 1997 in the matter of Calcutta District Primary School Council and Anr. vs. Bijoy Bahadur Singh and Ors. , F. M. A. T. No. 1229 of 1996 with F. M. A. T. 3739 of 1996. ( 10 ) IN the present case, also, the Managing Committee of the school being the competent authority appointed the writ petitioner as an assistant teacher in the additional post without obtaining prior approval of the concerned authority in terms of the order of recognition. Accordingly, pursuant to the aforesaid decision of this Hon'ble Court, the State government could have only withdrawn the recognition of the said school, which, however, has not been done in the instant case. Accordingly, pursuant to the aforesaid decision of this Hon'ble Court, the State government could have only withdrawn the recognition of the said school, which, however, has not been done in the instant case. The District Inspector of Schools (PE), Calcutta, however, prepared a list of unapproved teachers working in normal and additional posts at different schools in the district of calcutta wherein the name of the writ petitioner was specifically mentioned against Serial No. 17 and approached the Director of School Education on 1/11/1985 for according necessary approval. ( 11 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that the respondent District inspector of School (PE), Calcutta and the Director of School Education had specific knowledge regarding appointment of the writ petitioner as unapproved teacher and furthermore, the said District Inspector of Schools (PE), Calcutta approached the superior authority for approval of the aforesaid appointment of the writ petitioner as duly qualified teacher. The initial appointment of the writ petitioner/respondent as an assistant teacher in the additional post, therefore, cannot be said to be irregular and/or illegal since the said writ petitioner was not only duly qualified but was appointed by the competent authority, namely, the Managing Committee of the said school and the circular dated 8th November, 1974 could not be made applicable in respect of the appointment of the writ petitioner as an assistant teacher in the primary school within the town of Calcutta. ( 12 ) IT has also not been alleged that the writ petitioner was appointed in violation of any statutory rules. The appointment of the said writ petitioner in violation of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the order of recognition of the said school can be treated as violation of an administrative order but the same cannot be a nullity in the eye of law as has been held by justice Satyabrata Sinha in the case of Sir Bijoy Bahadur Singh (supra ). ( 13 ) SINCE the writ petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher of the school by the competent authority, namely, the Managing Committee of the said school as far back as on 3rd January, 1976 and the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Calcutta requested the Director of School Education on 1st january, 1985 for according necessary approval to the said appointment of the writ petitioner, there cannot be any valid reason to refuse such regularisation and/ or approval of the said appointment of the writ petitioner/respondent herein. It cannot be disputed that thousands of students were benefited by the services rendered by the respondent/writ petitioner herein during the last three decades and the said writ petitioner, therefore, should not be allowed to suffer any longer due to non-regularisation and/or approval of the appointment as primary school teacher in the concerned school. ( 14 ) THE appellant herein cannot refuse to recognise the services rendered by the writ petitioner/respondent as primary school teacher during the last three decades specially when the said writ petitioner was appointed by the competent authority, namely, the Managing Committee of the school and without violating any statutory provision. Furthermore, scrutinising the order under appeal we find that the learned Single Judge directed the concerned State respondents to regularise and approve the appointment of the writ petitioner/respondent against the regular vacancy from the date of his joining as the assistant teacher in the concerned school. ( 15 ) MR. Tulsidas Maity, learned Counsel representing the appellant submits that the cases of appointment of teachers like the writ petitioner herein in the primary schools in Calcutta was required to be and should be disposed of by the District Inspector of Schools (P) with prior approval of the Director of Primary Education subject to certain conditions as mentioned in the government Order No. 975-Edn (P) dated 26th November, 1981. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not in dispute that the District Inspector of schools (P), Calcutta and the Director of Primary Education, West Bengal are the concerned authorities to take appropriate decisions regarding regularisation and/or approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner against the regular vacancy as directed by the learned Single Judge. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not in dispute that the District Inspector of schools (P), Calcutta and the Director of Primary Education, West Bengal are the concerned authorities to take appropriate decisions regarding regularisation and/or approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner against the regular vacancy as directed by the learned Single Judge. ( 16 ) IN terms of the aforesaid Government Order dated 26th November, 1981, only the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Calcutta and the Director of Primary Education, West Bengal were required to take appropriate decision regarding approval and/or regularisation of the appointment of the writ petitioner as primary school teacher and the appellant herein, namely, the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Calcutta had or has no role to play regarding regularisation of appointment of teachers in the primary schools in terms of the aforesaid Government Order dated 26th November, 1981. ( 17 ) THE State respondent particularly the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Calcutta and the Director of Primary Education, West Bengal did not choose to prefer any appeal before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court challenging the said judgment and order dated 3rd May. 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge. Even the District Primary School Council did not prefer any appeal in the instant case. Accordingly, it can be reasonably presumed that the State respondents particularly the District Inspector of schools (PE), Calcutta, Director of Primary Education, West Bengal and even the District Primary School Council, Calcutta are not at all aggrieved by the directions of the learned Single Judge. ( 18 ) ON examination of the judgment under appeal was find that learned single Judge never issued any direction upon the appellant herein and therefore, the said appellant cannot be aggrieved and/or affected by the judgment under appeal. The appellant herein, therefore, not being an aggrieved party cannot be said to have any locus to file the instant appeal. The aforesaid issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cyril E. Fernandes vs. Sr. Myria Lydia and Ors. reported in AIR 1977 sc 2145 and the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of state of Rajasthan vs. M/s. Balaji Industries and Ors. reported in AIR 2002 rajasthan 200. ( 19 ) THE relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cyril E. Fernandes vs. Sr. Myria Lydia and Ors. reported in AIR 1977 sc 2145 and the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of state of Rajasthan vs. M/s. Balaji Industries and Ors. reported in AIR 2002 rajasthan 200. ( 19 ) THE relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cyril E. Fernandes vs. Sr. Myria Lydia and Ors. reported in AIR 1977 SC 2145 are set out hereunder: "4. The scope of the appeal is limited to what the judgment contains by which the appellant can be said to be aggrieved. A person can claim to be aggrieved if his legal rights are directly affected. " ( 20 ) THE relevant extracts from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. M/s. Balaji industries and Ors. reported in AIR 2002 Rajasthan 200 are also quoted hereunder: "12. So far as the State of Rajasthan is concerned, none of its orders or authority to be exercised by it under the Act or any such power which it can legitimately exercise is subject-matter of this writ petition. It cannot be considered as an aggrieved party. Therefore, the State Govt. too cannot be said to have locus to file this appeal. " ( 21 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, we hold that the appellant herein is not an aggrieved party as the learned Single Judge never issued any direction upon the appellant herein and the appellant is also not directly affected by the said judgment under appeal. For the aforesaid reason, the appellant herein has no locus to file the instant appeal and therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone. ( 22 ) MR. For the aforesaid reason, the appellant herein has no locus to file the instant appeal and therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone. ( 22 ) MR. Tulsidas Maity, learned Counsel of the appellant cited various decisions in support of his arguments which have been specifically mentioned hereinbefore but the same are not required to be discussed in details for the purpose of deciding the issues raised in this appeal in view of the facts that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 was neither illegal nor irregular as the said writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 being duly qualified was appointed by the competent authority, namely, the Managing committee of the concerned school on 3rd January, 1976 and thereafter, serving the said school uninterruptedly for more than three decades apart from the fact that the instant appeal is also not maintainable at the instance of the appellant herein for the reasons discussed hereinbefore. ( 23 ) ACCORDINGLY, we approve the directions of the learned Single Judge as mentioned in the order under appeal and affirm the said judgment. The concerned authorities of the State Government are, therefore, directed to regularise and/or approve the appointment of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 as a regular teacher against the regular vacancy in the concerned school where the said teacher was appointed or in any other school against a regular vacancy in the manner as directed by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal without any further delay but positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. ( 24 ) THIS appeal thus stands dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.