JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal by the Director of Technical Education and Training, Government of West Bengal. He is aggrieved by the impugned judgement and order dated 14th May, 2014 made by Justice Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari in a writ application (W.P. 14133(W) of 2014). The respondent writ petitioners are working as employees in the canteens run and operated by the Directorate of Technical Education and Training Department, Government of West Bengal. In the impugned order, the prayer of the respondent writ petitioners for being granted the status of permanent regular group-D employees was allowed. The appellant respondent in the writ was directed to release all service benefits which were being paid to the regular group-D employees to the petitioning canteen employees. 2. Being aggrieved the Director is in appeal before us. We notice from paragraph 3 of the stay petition that the respondent writ petitioners were appointed between 7th December, 1981 and 31st August, 2009. They are ten in number. 3. The question to be answered in this appeal is whether the grounds for making the decision in the writ application and the ultimate decision arrived at by the learned Single Judge were correct or not? 4. The following were the findings of the learned single Judge. The respondent/writ petitioners were all selected through a proper selection process. The appointment letters were issued by the principal. They are in continuous service since the time of their appointment. Their pay fixation was made immediately after their appointments. They were given the benefit of revised pay fixation pursuant to the Government memorandum dated 14th February, 2000. This class of employees had been recognized to be entitled to permanent status in the case reported in 1996 CWN page 237. 5. Those facts could not be controverted in the appeal. 6. Mr. Mondal learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has argued the appeal with great vigour. He pointed out to this Court the decision taken by the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal on 2nd January, 2014, further to the order dated 17th April, 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge directing him to pass a reasoned order on the subject. He ruled the following : 1. He pointed out to this Court the decision taken by the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal on 2nd January, 2014, further to the order dated 17th April, 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge directing him to pass a reasoned order on the subject. He ruled the following : 1. That the State Government has already considered the petitioners’ demands and have issued orders from time to time, including granting them a scale of pay equivalent to Group ‘D’ staff besides other benefits such as gratuity; 1. That the petitioners were not appointed by the State or Governing Bodies of the Government-aided colleges but by the respective hostel/mess committees and further, there were no recruitment rules/procedures followed in doing the same, and therefore the selection of the said staff was selective and restricted ,i.e. not open to all intending applicants; 1. That the comparison with the Government College of Textile Technology is not apt since Government Colleges are very different in nature and character from Government-aided colleges, particularly in the way their staff establishments are structured; 1. The huge financial liabilities entailed by the petitioners’ demand, and 1. The fact that a similar matter is before a Larger Bench of the Hon’ble High Court (as pointed out in para 10) and awaiting adjudication” 7. Learned counsel also tried to distinguish this case by saying that these canteens were operated by the Technical Education Department, whereas other canteens whose employees have been directed by the courts to be regularized are of a different Department/Departments. Those cases could not be considered as similar. 8. At the time of delivering the judgment learned Advocate General wanted leave of this Court to make submissions on behalf of the State. Such leave was refused. Nevertheless the learned Advocate General submitted that the respondent/writ petitioners were not employees of the State but were employees of the respective institutions appointed by a committee formed by the institutions headed by the Principals. 9. But we note the broad submission he tried to make was that the respondents were irregularly appointed by a committee presided over by the Principal and their appointment could not be termed as legal or regular. Hence they were not entitled to any benefit more than they were receiving under the appellants. 10. Mr. 9. But we note the broad submission he tried to make was that the respondents were irregularly appointed by a committee presided over by the Principal and their appointment could not be termed as legal or regular. Hence they were not entitled to any benefit more than they were receiving under the appellants. 10. Mr. Bhattacharjee retorted to that submission by stating that these institutions were all created by Statute or by administrative orders and that each of the respondent/writ petitioners was deemed to be an employee of the State. 11. We find that all the findings of the Secretary in his said order dated 2nd January, 2014 were challenged in this Court in the writ where the impugned judgment and order dated 14th May, 2014 was made. Each and every finding of fact has been negatived by the learned Single Judge. After this his lordship came to the conclusion that the respondent writ petitioners were rendering permanent service on a continuous basis as other Group-D employees of the government teaching institutions and were entitled to the same benefit. It appears that a similar issue but concerning a different department of the Government, involving canteen employees was considered by a larger Bench of this Court on reference in the case F.M.A. 2680 of 2007, F.M.A. 2681 of 2007 and M.A.T.2903 of 2005 State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Dalui & Ors. 12. On the basis of a memorandum dated 28th October, 2014 which granted the reliefs sought by the writ petitioners therein with effect from 1st February, 2000 the reference was answered. 13. We also find from a note sheet dated 21st November, 2014 signed by the Director of Technical Education and Training, Government of West Bengal that the proposal had been forwarded to the Government for implementing the policy of granting Group-D status to the hostel/mess employees and to treat them as Group-D employees “as the ground for filing of appeal is very weak for obvious reasons.” 14. Mr. Mondal has, with lot of fervour, shown us State of Uttaranchal and Another Vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish and Ors. (2011)8 SCC 670 to argue that no value should be attached to a note sheet. But even if we did not attach any value to the note sheet, no appeal has been preferred by the appellant or by the State from the said order of the larger bench. Sunil Kumar Vaish and Ors. (2011)8 SCC 670 to argue that no value should be attached to a note sheet. But even if we did not attach any value to the note sheet, no appeal has been preferred by the appellant or by the State from the said order of the larger bench. By their conduct the appellant has accepted the said order, following the opinion expressed in the note sheet. Taking note of the subsequent conduct of the Government is enough for this Court. 15. These canteens operated by the Technical Department or other departments are identical in the type and quality of service rendered to the students, the work that their employees are required to perform, the number of hours of work and so on. The learned Single Judge has advanced very clear cut reasons on which his lordship came to the conclusion that these canteen employees were permanent employees, rendering continuous service and the same type of service as other canteen employees in the Education Department of the State. 16. As the appellate Court we ought not to interfere with those findings save and except under exceptional circumstances. We have not been shown any circumstances to come to a different finding. 17. Therefore, since these employees have been doing the same type of work as the other canteen employees we fail to understand why they should not be granted the same status and facilities as their counter parts. The learned Single Judge was right in allowing the writ application and granting the consequential reliefs. We affirm the judgment and order of the Court below dated 14th May, 2014. Both the appeals F.M.A. 1152 of 2015 and F.M.A. 1161 of 2015 involve identical facts and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 18. Both the appeals F.M.A. 1152 of 2015 and F.M.A. 1161 of 2015 are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Learned Advocate General prays for stay of operation of this order. 19. Considering the nature and complexity of issues involved we think that the State must be given a chance to prove its point before the Supreme Court. 20. We accordingly stay operation of the impugned judgment for a period of four weeks only.