JUDGMENT : I.P. MUKERJI, J. 1. The expression "petitioners" in this judgment will also refer to the teaching and non-teaching staff referred to in prayer (b) of the petition. In 1970 the school in question Vidya Vikash High School (HS) was established. It was founded by one Dinanath Shaw, since deceased. Education was imparted both in Hindi and Bengali medium. The school was co-educational and intended to serve a thickly populated area under the Naihati Municipality. 2. The school constituted its managing committee. This committee acting as the organising committee appointed both teaching and non-teaching staff. 3. On 6th August, 1993 the Education Department Government of West Bengal recommended the school for recognition by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education as a high school from class V to X with effect from 1st May, 1993. On 11th January, 1994 this Board recognised the school from class V to X. Prior to all this an inspection team had inspected the school and in its report dated 18th January, 1993 opined that the school was intended to have 58 teaching and, 5 non-teaching staff. 4. After protracted litigation by 2nd May, 2000 thirty four teaching posts were sanctioned or deemed to be sanctioned for the school by the Director of School Education. Three posts for non-teaching staff were also sanctioned. Therefore, out of the recommended 58 teaching and 5 non-teaching posts 34 teaching and 3 non-teaching posts had been sanctioned. 5. Meanwhile, the school had been upgraded into 10 + 2 level Higher Secondary School. 6. The writ petitioners are aggrieved by a decision dated 18th December, 2015 made by the Commissioner of School Education West Bengal, further to an order passed by a division bench of this court on 22nd August, 2013. In that judgment and order the Commissioner was asked to make the following determination: "a. Whether the candidate was appointed by the managing committee pursuant to the notification relating to organising teachers issued by the State from time to time? b. Whether he continued to serve the school until the school was upgraded? c. Whether he is still continuing to serve the school pursuant to his initial appointment? d. Whether he had the requisite qualification at the time of initial appointment? 7. b. Whether he continued to serve the school until the school was upgraded? c. Whether he is still continuing to serve the school pursuant to his initial appointment? d. Whether he had the requisite qualification at the time of initial appointment? 7. The Commissioner in this decision dated 18th September, 2015 held that twenty three additional posts of assistant teacher and one post of Headmaster may be sanctioned for the school. He remarked that it was up to the Secretary to take the next course of action to Sanction the additional posts. 8. According to him, the petitioners and the alleged organising employees had not established their claim. 9. In the writ petition inter alia the following prayers have been made. "(a) writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their servants and agents, to rescind, recall, withdraw and quash the impugned order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal, as in Annexure "P9". (b) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their servants and agents, to grant approval of 23 organising teaching staff and 2 non-teaching staff (viz. One Clerk and one Class IV staff) of Vidya Vikas High School (HS), who furnished their testimonials at the time of personal hearing held on 8.10.2015 in the chamber of the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal, straightway without any further delay as was done in respect of 34 organising teaching staff and 4 non-teaching staff in pursuance of the earlier orders of this Hon'ble Court and giving all consequential benefits." 10. This order is attacked by the writ petitioners on several grounds. It was made on the basis of the inspection report dated 12th September, 2014 based on an inspection made on 2nd July, 2014. No copy of the report was furnished to the petitioner. The documents with regard to the appointment of organising teachers and non-teaching staff were not considered. 11. The commissioner failed to appreciate that 23 posts of assistant teachers and one post of head master were sanctioned by him on 11th December, 2014. The writ petitioner says that the Commissioner ought to have approved the services of twenty three teachers', one clerk and one group-D staff. 12. The Commissioner in the impugned order has held that eight teachers of the school did not have the requisite qualification. Hence, their appointment was bad. The writ petitioner says that the Commissioner ought to have approved the services of twenty three teachers', one clerk and one group-D staff. 12. The Commissioner in the impugned order has held that eight teachers of the school did not have the requisite qualification. Hence, their appointment was bad. The Commissioner has also drawn an adverse inference from the attendance records of seven teachers from August 2002 to May 2007. 13. Some irrelevant materials have been considered by the Commissioner. The school was recognised on 11th January, 1994. The Commissioner was asked to determine whether the claimants could be considered as organising staff. Therefore, their service upto the date the school was recognised or upgraded was the relevant factor. The school was recognised in 1994. In 2012 it was upgraded. Therefore the material years were 1994 and 2012. The period of absence referred to by the Commissioner did not relate to this period. 14. From the records it is quite clear that although the appointment of nine teachers was not proper, nevertheless the appointment had the trappings of formality. The teachers were recruited by the Managing Committee, initially. They have served the school thereafter. At best their appointment could be termed as irregular, in the context the word has been used in the case of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Hence, they rightfully staked their claim to the appointments. That some of the candidates do not have adequate degrees is no factor now because for so many years they have imparted education and the school students have received it without any complaint. 15. For all the above reasons the impugned decision of the Commissioner is partly set aside. There is no point in ordering a fresh inspection. The order of the Commissioner itself contains sufficient evidence that the petitioners were working as organising teachers and staff. That part of his decision determining the required number of posts for the school as twenty three for assistant teachers and one post of headmaster is upheld. These posts should be immediately sanctioned by the Secretary School Education Department Government of West Bengal, within three months of communication of this order. The Secretary should also sanction 2 non-teaching posts in terms of prayer (b) of the petition, within the aforesaid period. These posts should be immediately sanctioned by the Secretary School Education Department Government of West Bengal, within three months of communication of this order. The Secretary should also sanction 2 non-teaching posts in terms of prayer (b) of the petition, within the aforesaid period. Order in terms of the balance part of prayer(b) of the petition, to be implemented by the respondent No. 2 within a further period of three months. 16. The second part of the order saying that the claimants had not been able to establish their claim is set aside. 17. This writ application is accordingly allowed. Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.