JUDGMENT: ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. (1) IDENTICAL issue involved in these appeals was dealt with by us in the case of Gautam Bandyopadhyay (MAT 1413/2004). The said unreported judgment was relied upon by another Division Bench in the case of Smritikana, Maity and Ore. (FMA 94/2006). The Division Bench of this Court consistently held that irregular appointees in unrecognised section of any aided school are not entitled to have their service regularised after the school is upgraded as they were appointed contrary to the Recruitment rules. In the instant case also the respondents claim to be the organising staff of the upgraded school of the concerned school. There is also a dispute between two groups of teaching staff making rival claims. Learned Single judge allowed their writ petitions by asking the State to regularise all and accommodate them. State was asked to create vacancy by creating posts for the excess staff. (2) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge the State preferred the instant appeals. (3) MR. Saikat Banerjee, learned Counsel, appearing for the State in support of the appeals, has relied on various unreported decisions including those referred to above and has contended that Rule 28 of the Management rules was not followed at all while giving purported appointment to the respondents by the then managing committee of the concerned school. Mr. Banerjee contends that the issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Smritikana Maity (supra) and relying on the said decision Mr. Banerjee prays for setting aside of the judgment and order of the learned single Judge being contrary to the ratio decided by the Division Bench. (4) MR. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned Counsel, appearing for some of the respondents contends that the unreported decisions cited at the Bar to support the appeals were all based upon the decision in the case of monindranath Sinha, reported in (2000)3 Cal LJ 489. Mr. Chatterjee also submits that the ratio decided in Monindranath Sinha (supra) is verbative reproduction of another Single Bench decision which was affirmed by the division Bench in Monindranath Sinha (supra). Emphasis was put by the division Bench in Monindranath Sinha (supra) on the said Single Bench decision in the case of Aloke Jyoti Moitra, reported in (2004)1 Cal HN 297. (5) MR. Emphasis was put by the division Bench in Monindranath Sinha (supra) on the said Single Bench decision in the case of Aloke Jyoti Moitra, reported in (2004)1 Cal HN 297. (5) MR. Chatterjee contends that neither the Single Bench decision in the case of Aloke Jyoti Moitra (supra) nor the Division Bench decision. In the case of Monindranath Sinha (supra) considered the relevant circulars being circulars dated September 30, 1992, October 21, 1992 and February 24, 1995. According to Mr. Chatterjee in an unrecognised Section there could be no appointment following Rule 28 as Rule 28 only applies in case of a recognised school duly aided by the State. So long the School is not recognised and so long it is not aided the Rule 28 has no application. This aspect, according to Mr. Chatterjee was not at all considered by the said decisions. Hence we should take a different view ignoring the decisions in the case of Aloke Jyoti Moitra (supra) and Monindranath Sinha (supra). (6) MR. Chatterjee lastly contends that 1992 circular was issued superseding the earlier circulars including the circular of 1978 referred to in circular dated February 24, 1995 Hence the impediment created by the circular dated February 24, 1995 because of 1978 circular is of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the concerned teaching staff were all covered by 1992 circular. (7) MR. Chatterjee lastly contends that the circulars were issued by the State in accordance with the provisions of Section 19a of the West bengal Secondary Education Act as well as Section 48 thereof. Those circulars were have statutory force. Hence the Learned Judge was right in directing regularisation which was legitimate in view of the circulars dated September 30, 1992 and October 21, 1992. Mr. Chatterjee prays for dismissal of the appeals. (8) MR. Malay Basu, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the other group of teaching staff making identical prayer adopts the argument made by Mr. Chatterjee. In addition, Mr. Basu submits that even if this Court intends to rely on Smritikana Maity (supra) this Court should consider a peculiar fact which was rather absent in other cases. (9) TO elaborate his submission Mr. Bose contends that the school prayed for recognition of the upgraded section which was not granted by the State. Chatterjee. In addition, Mr. Basu submits that even if this Court intends to rely on Smritikana Maity (supra) this Court should consider a peculiar fact which was rather absent in other cases. (9) TO elaborate his submission Mr. Bose contends that the school prayed for recognition of the upgraded section which was not granted by the State. Hence the then managing committee of the concerned school approached the learned Single Judge, inter alia, making their grievance as against the State. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge by judgment and order dated March 11, 1998. The learned single Judge examined the grounds of rejection assigned by the Board and came to a finding that those were not tenable. The principal issue involved therein was with regard to the ownership of the building where the school was situated. His Lordship ultimately held that such order of the Board could be not sustained in law and should be quashed. His Lordship after quashing the order of the Board impugned therein directed the appropriate authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the said judgment and order. The said judgment and order was not appealed from. However, the authorities did not act upon the same which resulted in a contempt proceeding. The contempt proceeding was disposed of by order dated November 30, 1998. While disposing the contempt proceeding His Lordship passed a further order with regard to regularisation of the organising staff. The authorities thereafter granted recognition in terms of the order passed which attained finality. (10) WE have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Let us first dispose of the issues rasied by Mr. Chatterjee. (11) IT might be true that the circulars were not discussed in detail in monindranath Siriha (supra) or Aloke Jyoti Moitra (supra). However, the subsequent decisions on the identical issue would depict that the Division bench after considering not only the judgment in the case of Monindranath sinha (supra) but also all the relevant circulars came to the identical conclusion. Hence the submissions of Mr. Chatterjee on that score being not tenable is rejected. (12) THE Division Bench in the case of West Bengal Board of secondary Education, reported in (1997)1 WBLR 165, observed that an organising staff means a person who is involved in establishment of the organisation which requires recognition. Hence the submissions of Mr. Chatterjee on that score being not tenable is rejected. (12) THE Division Bench in the case of West Bengal Board of secondary Education, reported in (1997)1 WBLR 165, observed that an organising staff means a person who is involved in establishment of the organisation which requires recognition. While discussing in detail the division Bench observed that resolution of the first managing committee must feature the name of the staff who is asking for regularisation as organising staff. A person who is subsequently appointed might be called as teacher in position and has no right to claim himself as organising staff. In the instant case both the groups were appointed subsequently as appears from the documents disclosed before the learned Single Judge and produced before us through the respective paper books. One group claims that they are old staff and other group claims that others left the school in between and thereafter they joined and they are still functioning as organising staff. We do not wish to enter into such controversy. Assuming they were appointed in the unrecognised section, admittedly the school committee did not follow any norms and procedure while appointing them. (13) ISSUE has been raised as to applicability of Rule 28. Mr. Chatterjee has contended that an unrecognised section cannot have any recognised managing committee. Such submission is not tenable. The managing committee which is recognised by the appropriate authority to run the management and control of the said school up to the recognised section is only entitled to claim for upgradation. The said managing committee being recognised managing committee receiving aid from the state cannot be called as unrecognised committee without having no obligation to adhere to Rule 28. (14) LET us now examine the circulars. Detailed discussions were made by the Division Bench in the case of Smritikana Maity (supra). We only wish to add that February 24, 1995 circular made it absolutely clear that the teachers who were authorised to send up students for Board examination prior to 1978 were only entitled to claim for regularisation. Hence these teaching staff claiming to have been appointed in 1990 onwards cannot claim any benefit of 1995 circular. The school was upgraded in 1998. Question of regularisation of the organising staff would come only when the school was recognised. At that point of time the circular dated February 24, 1995 was in force. Hence these teaching staff claiming to have been appointed in 1990 onwards cannot claim any benefit of 1995 circular. The school was upgraded in 1998. Question of regularisation of the organising staff would come only when the school was recognised. At that point of time the circular dated February 24, 1995 was in force. Hence assuming they are organising staff they are not entitled to regularisation in view of the said circular dated February 24, 1995. (15) THE West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 came in force in November 1997. The concerned school was upgraded in 1998 when no teacher could be appointed without being recommended by the school Service Commission as per Section 9 thereof. Hence school authority was not at all entitled to appoint any teaching staff in 1997-1998 as claimed by some of them, if any event after the said Act of 1997 came in force those circulars did not have any application save and except in exceptional cases as pointed out in the circular dated February 24, 1995. (16) THE appeals thus succeed. The order of the learned Single Judge was quashed and set aside. The writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.