JUDGMENT 1. WHILE disposing of the petitioners earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 16221(W) of 1999, the claim of the petitioner for her absorption on regularization of her service which she was rendering in the Madrasah even prior to its recognition as Organizer Teacher was rejected by a Learned Single Judge of this Court by relying upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka- versus- Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The petitioner, herein, tried to reopen the issue which was decided in the said writ petition by filing another writ petition being W.P. No. 496(W) of 2010. The said writ petition (W.P. No. 496(W) of 2010) was also dismissed by another Learned Single Judge of this Court on 17th May, 2010 by holding inter alia that the same question cannot be re-agitated repeatedly by filing successive writ petitions for claiming the relief’s which had already been denied to her in the earlier writ petition. 2. EVEN thereafter the petitioner did not stop. The petitioner has again filed the instant writ petition by renewing her prayer for her absorption on regularization of her service in the said Madrasah which has subsequently been upgraded to High Madrasah, in the additional posts which have been sanctioned for the upgraded classes namely Class IX and Class X in the said Madrasah. Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, tried to impress upon this Court that the present writ petition is not barred by the Principles of Resjudicata as the context in which the earlier writ petitions were rejected, has since been changed after upgradation of the said Junior High Madrasah to the High Madrasah. It is contended by him that when the earlier writ petitions were rejected by this Hon’ble Court, then there was no vacancy in any sanctioned post in the recognized Junior High Madrasah wherein the petitioner could have been absorbed. It is pointed out by him that the situation has now altered after up gradation of the said Junior High Madrasah to High Madrasah as the additional posts which were sanctioned for the upgraded classes namely Class IX and Class X still remains vacant where the petitioner can be absorbed as she can satisfy the eligibility criteria for one of such newly sanctioned posts. He further contended that when the seven organizer teachers including the one who was junior to him, have already been absorbed on regularization of their services after the said Madrasah was recognized by the Board, the petitioner who was similarly placed with the other organizer teachers of the said Madrasah cannot be singled out. Thus, in short he wanted to agitate the point of discrimination in support of his clients claim for regularization of her service. Mr. Panja, learned Advocate, appearing for the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education, refuted such submission of Mr. Sanyal by drawing my attention to the letter written by the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education to the Secretary of the said Junior High Madrasah whereby the Boards decision to upgrade the said Junior High Madrasah to High Madrasah with effect from 1st May, 2010, was communicated to the Secretary of the said Madrasah. He pointed out that permission to open Class IX from 1st May, 2010 and Class X from 1st May, 2011 was given to the said Junior High Madrasah provisionally for three years subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. The conditions which are relevant for the present purpose which were mentioned in the said communication letter are as follows: Condition No. 7. The teaching and non-teaching staff of the Madrasah should be appointed by the Managing Committee only on the recommendation of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission constituted for selection of teaching and non-teaching staff; Condition No. 9. The Madrasah authority shall strictly follow the Act and Rules of the State Government and shall abide by regulations and guidelines of the Board from time to time; By referring to the said conditions Mr. Panja submitted that the additional posts which were sanctioned for the upgraded High Madrasah, can only be filled up by following the condition no.7, as referred to above. According to him, those posts cannot be filled up in any other manner save and except in the manner as mentioned in the condition no.7 as mentioned above. Panja submitted that the additional posts which were sanctioned for the upgraded High Madrasah, can only be filled up by following the condition no.7, as referred to above. According to him, those posts cannot be filled up in any other manner save and except in the manner as mentioned in the condition no.7 as mentioned above. He brought to the notice of this Court that a candidate has already been selected for posting in the newly sanctioned post through the test conducted by the Madrasah Service Commission which has already recommended him for his appointment as an assistant teacher in the said Madrasah, but the Madrasah authority refused to allow him to join, on the plea of pendency of this writ petition. After considering the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the submission of Mr. Panja is much more convincing as it is rightly pointed out by him that even in the changed scenario the petitioner cannot be absorbed on regularization of her service in the newly sanctioned posts as those posts cannot be filled up in any other manner which is contrary to the condition as mentioned in the condition no.7. With regard to the point of discrimination this Court holds that the petitioner cannot succeed even on the ground of discrimination unless she can satisfy the Court that she has a legal right which is protected under any statute for her absorption in the newly sanctioned post. The petitioner, in my view, has miserably failed in her attempt to satisfy this Court about her legal right for being appointed as an assistant teacher in the said Madrasah by virtue of her long service rendered in the said Madrasah as organizer teacher therein. That apart, despite the point of discrimination was available to the petitioner earlier at the time of moving the earlier writ petitions, and the said point having not been raised in the earlier writ petitions, this Court is of the view that the said point cannot be raised for the first time in this writ petition because of the principle of constructive resjudicata. 3. 3. THE Principle laid down in Uma Debis case squarely applies in the instant case and as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. SEB vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey; reported in (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 92, as the said decision was subsequently discarded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a later decision passed in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand; reported in (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 1. THIS Court also cannot overlook the earlier decisions of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Aloke Jyoti Maitra vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in (2004) Volume 1 Calcutta High Court Notes Page 297 and in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Smritikana Maity and Ors. reported in (2008) Calcutta Jaw Journal Volume 1 page 316 (DB) where it was held that after introduction of the Madrasah Service Commission Act in 1995, no person can be appointed in a teaching post save and except through the Madrasah Service Commission. The initial appointment of the organizer teacher in the Madrasah was held to be illegal in the said decision as the appointing authority viz. The Organizer Managing Committee is an illegally constituted body, not recognized by law. It was further stated therein that the concept of organizer Managing Committee and organizer teaching and non-teaching staff is unknown to law and is not recognized in the Madrasah Service Commission Act. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners claim for her absorption as organizer teacher cannot be entertained, even though the other organizer teachers of the said Madrasah were absorbed therein as one wrong cannot justify the other wrong and the Court cannot permit repetition of commission of wrong by issuance of a mandate to the authority concerned. 5. UNDER such circumstances, this Court holds that the relief which the petitioner has claimed in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition, thus, stands rejected. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.