Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 913 (CAL)

Aliah University v. S. K. Marjamal Haque

2019-11-05

DIPANKAR DATTA, SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI

body2019
JUDGMENT : DIPANKAR DATTA, J. 1. Aliah University (hereinafter the University), its Vice-Chancellor and the Officer-in-Charge, Calcutta Madrasah/Calcutta Madrasah College, are the appellants before us. They call in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated May 7, 2014 passed by a learned Judge of this Court allowing WP 12104(W) of 2007 [Sk. Marjamal Haque v. Officer-in-Charge, Calcutta Madrasah & ors.]. The contesting respondent in the appeal is obviously the writ petitioner, Sk. Marjamal Haque. 2. By the same judgment and order dated May 7, 2014, a subsequent writ petition of the writ petitioner being WP 1255 (W) of 2011 [Sk. Marjamal Haque v. Aliah University & ors.] also stood disposed of in view of the decision in WP 12104 (W) of 2007. No separate appeal has, however, been carried from the order of disposal of WP 1255 (W) of 2011 by the appellants. 3. While disposing of WP 12104 (W) of 2007, the learned Judge concluded on the basis of categorical findings (which we shall refer later) that there was no irregularity and or illegality in the appointment of the writ petitioner and, therefore, the concerned authorities including the university were directed to regularize the service of the writ petitioner "and to grant gratuity and the scale of pay which the writ petitioner is entitled to along with all the benefits as directed in the order dated 24th December, 2010 of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court". The University was directed to act on the communication of the learned Advocate-on-record for the writ petitioner within 7 days from date without waiting for the certified copy of the order. 4. In view of a previous order of an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated July 4, 2011 requiring consideration of WP 1255 (W) of 2011 after disposal of WP 12104 (W) of 2007, the learned Judge disposed of WP 1255 (W) of 2011 with a direction upon the respondents to allow the writ petitioner resume his duty forthwith. 5. A trip down memory lane would enable us to have a grip on the facts and circumstances leading to the several forays the writ petitioner made to this Court in his quest for justice. 6. The first time the writ petitioner had the occasion to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court was on September 29, 1997. 5. A trip down memory lane would enable us to have a grip on the facts and circumstances leading to the several forays the writ petitioner made to this Court in his quest for justice. 6. The first time the writ petitioner had the occasion to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court was on September 29, 1997. In his writ petition, numbered as WP 23970 (W) of 1997, wherein the respondents were the State of West Bengal through its School Department and the Higher Education Department, the Director of School Education, West Bengal (hereafter the DSE), the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal, the Principal/Officer-in-Charge, Calcutta Madrasah and its Governing Body, the writ petitioner contended that he was asked to join as an Assistant Teacher in English in the Calcutta Madrasah by the President of the Governing Body (who was none other than a retired Judge of this Court). Acting in furtherance thereof, the writ petitioner started rendering his service on temporary/adhoc basis from January 19, 1994. Though no appointment letter contemporaneously appears to have been issued in favour of the writ petitioner and hence could not be annexed to the writ petition, copy of a communication dated January 19, 1994 of the Principal, Calcutta Madrasah addressed to the DSE was annexed thereto. The said communication is reproduced herein below: "Sir, This is to inform you that Sk. Marjamal Haque having requisite qualification, having English in the B.A. Course and as per Government Rules has been asked to join as an Temporary/Ad-hoc basis as Assistant Teacher in English in Arabic Department, Calcutta Madrasah/Calcutta Madrasah College, from to-day 19.01.1994. Sk. Marjamal Haque was given permission to join as an English Teacher of the Madrasah/College as per order of the President of Governing Body, Hon'ble Justice ***, who was the Hon'ble Justice of the High Court, Calcutta. Sk. Marjamal Haque joined against the vacancy created due to the retirement of Shri Sazed Ali Akhond and due to non-availability of English Teacher. The students studies are getting hampered so Mr. Sk. Marjamal Haque has been asked to join the Madrasah on 19.01.1994 for the benefit of the students and the Hon'ble President assured him to regularise his service as early as possible". 7. The writ petitioner, however, annexed to such writ petition an appointment letter dated March 27, 1997 bearing memo no. 536/1 issued by the Principal, Calcutta Madrasah. Sk. Marjamal Haque has been asked to join the Madrasah on 19.01.1994 for the benefit of the students and the Hon'ble President assured him to regularise his service as early as possible". 7. The writ petitioner, however, annexed to such writ petition an appointment letter dated March 27, 1997 bearing memo no. 536/1 issued by the Principal, Calcutta Madrasah. Such letter recorded that the writ petitioner "is hereby appointed on temporary/adhoc basis as ... w.e.f. from 19.1.1994 vice ...". 8. Referring to rendering of uninterrupted service for more than 3 years without such service being regularized, the writ petitioner sought for the following relief: "(a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their agents, servants, subordinates and/or employees particularly the Director of School Education, West Bengal, being respondent No.4 to issue regularization letter to the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in English in Calcutta Madrasah/College and regularizing the service of the Petitioner with effect form 19.01.1994 the date of issue of the joining letter and appointment letter, and issue such regularization letter within 2 (two) weeks for the communication of the order; (b) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondent to produce the entire original records before this Hon'ble Court relating to this case so that same may be quashed by issuing an appropriate order; (c) A writ of or in the nature of prohibition the respondents form exercising powers not warranted under the statute;" 9. WP 23970 (W) of 1997 was moved before a learned Judge of this Court on September 30, 1997. It was disposed of on that very day with the following order: "In view of urgency of the matter, Rule 27 of the Writ Rules is dispensed with. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the petition upon *** who is a Government panel Advocate in course of today. The L.R. is directed to regularise the appointment of ***. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the petition upon *** who is a Government panel Advocate in course of today. The L.R. is directed to regularise the appointment of ***. The petitioner is given liberty to make representation before the Director of School Education for regularization of his service, which should be made by the petitioner within a fortnight from date and the concerned respondent authority is directed to regularise the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 19.01.94 and dispose of the same in the light of the Annexure 'B' to the writ petition as early as possible but in any case, positively within 31st December, 1997 and the time limit so fixed above is peremptory and mandatory. Let a plain copy of this order duly counter-signed by the Assistant- Registrar (Ct.) be given to the learned Advocate for the petitioner on usual undertaking." 10. Annexure 'B' referred to in the aforesaid extract of the order was a letter dated April 23, 1996 of the Deputy Secretary to the State of West Bengal, Department of School Education whereby the service of the writ petitioner's elder brother, Sk. Sahanul Haque, was regularised as an Assistant Teacher in English in the Arabic Department of the Calcutta Madrasah pursuant to an order of this Court dated January 10, 1992 passed on a writ petition [C.O. 16832(W) of 1989]. 11. Although by the said order dated September 30, 1997 the writ petitioner was required to submit a representation by October 15, 1997, he did so belatedly. In his representation dated October 24, 1997, the writ petitioner while quoting the aforesaid order prayed for regularization of his service since he was rendering "service for more than four years i.e., 19.01.1994". 12. Alleging that the order dated September 10, 1997 had not been complied with, the writ petitioner initiated an action for contempt (CPAN 171 of 1998). While alleging that the alleged contemnors (the incumbent Secretary of the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal and the incumbent DSE) had deliberately failed and neglected to comply with the order dated September 30, 1997, the writ petitioner annexed to such application a communication made to the alleged contemnors as well as the Principal/Officer-in-Charge, Calcutta Madrasah by the learned advocate who had appeared before the learned Judge on September 30, 1997 even without service of a copy of the writ petition on the respondents therein. The communication reads as follows: "Dear Sir, This is to inform you that the aforesaid application has been heard by His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice *** on 30th September, 1997. Mr. *** appeared for the petitioner. I appeared for the State respondents. After hearing both of us His Lordship Justice *** directed that the petitioner is given liberty to make representation before the Director of School Education for regularisation of his service which should be made by the petitioner within a fortnight from date and the concerned respondent/authority is directed to regularise the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 19.1.94 and dispose of the same in the light of the Annexure 'B' to the writ petition as early as possible but in any case, positively within 31st December, 1997 and the time limit so fixed above is peremptory and mandatory. Kindly comply with the Order forthwith." 13. In course of hearing, we had enquired of Mr. Bhandari, learned advocate for the writ petitioner whether any order had been made on CPAN 171 of 1998 and if so, to produce the same before us. We were informed that CPAN 171 of 1998 is still pending without any rule for contempt having been issued thereon. 14. From 1998 till August, 2004, there seems to have been little or no endeavour on the part of the writ petitioner to have his service regularised by way of implementation of the order dated September 30, 1997. On September 2, 2004, the writ petitioner woke up from his slumber and submitted a representation before the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal for regularisation of his service. Such representation was forwarded by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department vide memo dated September 27, 2004 to the Secretary, School Education Department for necessary action. By a memo bearing no. 1514 dated December 7, 2004, the office of the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal informed the Principal, Calcutta Madrasah that it had been decided to allow the adhoc appointment of the writ petitioner to continue for a period of a year from January 19, 2004 till January 18, 2005 and that subsequent extension shall be issued on expiry of the present term. It was also conveyed that regularisation of service of the writ petitioner "shall be done as early as possible". 15. This memo was followed by further few memoranda. It was also conveyed that regularisation of service of the writ petitioner "shall be done as early as possible". 15. This memo was followed by further few memoranda. Memo dated February 15, 2005 was issued by the DSE seeking instruction from the Principal Secretary, School Education Department to implement the order dated September 30, 1997 having regard to its terms and the pending contempt action. By memo dated September 2, 2005, the office of the DSE forwarded papers submitted by the writ petitioner for regularisation of his service to the Deputy Secretary, Appointment Branch for appropriate action at his end. The Deputy Secretary by his memo dated June 14, 2006 had, once again, forwarded all papers received by him from the writ petitioner to the Principal, Calcutta Madrasah with a request to verify and cross-check and to furnish a detailed report to the department with specific comments. By the last memo dated May 17, 2007, the Deputy Secretary once again requested the Officer-in-Charge, Calcutta Madrasah College to give his views on a petition dated April 16, 2007 submitted by the writ petitioner. 16. Without pursuing CPAN 171 of 1998 to have the order dated September 30, 1997 implemented, the writ petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court a second time by presenting WP 12104 (W) of 2007 dated April 25 2007 primarily for execution of the order dated September 30, 1997 passed on WP 23970 (W) of 1997. He prayed therein, inter alia, the following relief: "(a) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents college authority to submit all relevant papers relating to the service of the petitioner before the concerned respondent in terms of the Memo No. 172-LS Dt. 15.2.2005 and Memo No. 939/1(1) LS dated 2.9.05 & G.O. No. 360-SE (Apptt)/IS-9/05 Pt-II dt. 14.6.06 and G.O. No. 739/1(1) MD dt. 17.5.07 also commanding the concerned respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 30.09.97 in W.P.No. 23970(W) 97 along with CPAN No. 171 of 1998 within one month after having all papers from the end of the college authority. 14.6.06 and G.O. No. 739/1(1) MD dt. 17.5.07 also commanding the concerned respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 30.09.97 in W.P.No. 23970(W) 97 along with CPAN No. 171 of 1998 within one month after having all papers from the end of the college authority. (b) A writ or writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 and 2 to release the salary every month in the scale of Rs.1450-10175 as per ROPA' 98 and to take regular classes as per DSE's Memo No. 1514-SC/G dated 7.12.2004 or annexure 'P2' to this petition." The memoranda referred to in prayer (a) above, have been noted at paragraph 15 (supra). 17. The said writ petition was moved before a learned Judge of this Court on May 30, 2007 during the summer vacation when an interim order was passed to the following effect: "Heard Mr. ***, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. ***, learned advocate for the State. It is hereby ordered that the concerned Calcutta Madrasah College authority shall allow the present petitioner to sign on the Attendance Register until further orders of this Court. This order is passed in view of the fact, that the Hon'ble Justice *** (as his Lordship then was) passed direction in the year 1997, asking the authority to regularize the service of the present petitioner and in spite of the same, the authority has not passed any order for the last ten years. Liberty is granted to either of the parties to apply for extension, variation or modification of this order upon notice to the other side. The matter will appear before the regular bench two weeks after the summer vacation." 18. Alleging that the order dated May 30, 2007 had not been complied, a second action for contempt (CPAN 956 of 2007) was initiated by the writ petitioner whereupon, a Rule was issued on September 7, 2007 giving rise to WPCRC 692 of 2007. During the pendency of the Rule, the writ petitioner was permitted to sign the attendance register with immediate effect in compliance with the order dated May 30, 2007. This was conveyed to the writ petitioner by the Officer-in-Charge, Calcutta Madrasah College by memo no. 119 dated October 5, 2007. 19. During the pendency of the Rule, the writ petitioner was permitted to sign the attendance register with immediate effect in compliance with the order dated May 30, 2007. This was conveyed to the writ petitioner by the Officer-in-Charge, Calcutta Madrasah College by memo no. 119 dated October 5, 2007. 19. In an order dated October 12, 2007, whereby the Rule stood discharged, one finds an undertaking given on behalf of the contemnor no.1 (the incumbent Officer-in-Charge, Calcutta Madrasah) that he would allow the writ petitioner to sign the attendance register without any prejudice. However, the prayer of the writ petitioner for payment of salary was refused since it was not the subject matter of the contempt action. 20. On December 24, 2010, WP 12104 (W) of 2007 came up for consideration before another learned Judge of this Court. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest the same. After referring to the order dated September 30, 1997 passed in WP 23970 (W) of 1997 as well as developments in the matter thereafter, the learned Judge observed/directed as follows: "However, having regard to the facts and circumstance of this case and most importantly the fact that this Court as back as in the year 1997 directed the authority to regularize the appointment of the petitioner and that order was directed to be treated by the learned Judge as peremptory and mandatory and the concerned respondents having taken steps for regularization pursuant to the said order have not till date regularize the appointment of the petitioner, I think the petitioner once more deserves a mandatory order for regularization of his service at last. The petitioner like any other litigant of this country has a right to know the final outcome of the proceedings that he had initiated way back in the year 1994 for approval of his appointment. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has been serving the institution concerned since 1994 as an English Teacher and there is no doubt that his service has been fully utilized by the Institution concerned. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has been serving the institution concerned since 1994 as an English Teacher and there is no doubt that his service has been fully utilized by the Institution concerned. In a situation like this, if the respondents avoid their responsibility to approve the service by keeping quite (sic, quiet) for all these years even after taking some steps to regularize the appointment of the petitioner and in spite of the mandatory and peremptory for regularization of this Court then it is time to pass a mandatory order directing the authority concerned to regularize the petitioner's appointment as English teacher of the University concerned, namely Aliah University within a particular time, so that the petitioner does not suffer from uncertainties any further as a teacher. Thus the concerned respondents, namely the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents including Aliah University are directed to regularize the petitioner's service as English teacher of the Aliah University positively within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner will no doubt be entitled to all the financial benefits such as salary in arrears and the current salaries as teacher with effect from the date of the 1st order of this Court, namely from 19 January 1994. The salary in arrears of the petitioner including the current salary shall be paid to him by the authority concerned within a further period of four weeks from the date of the order of regularization in terms of this order without fail. The writ petition is disposed of as above." (emphasis supplied) 21. Close on the heels of disposal of WP 12104 (W) of 2007 on December 24, 2010, the writ petitioner filed the third in the series of writ petitions [AST 1302 of 2010, renumbered as WP 1255 (W) of 2011] impleading, inter alia, the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar of the University as the respondents 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In paragraphs 2 and 17 of the writ petition, it was averred that Calcutta Madrasah/College is "now upgraded as Aliah University" and it was prayed therein as follows: "(a) pass an order directing the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 to release the salary every month in the scale of pay of Rs.1,450-10175/- as per ROPA 1998 in the Memo No. 1514-SC/G dated 7.12.2004 to this Annexure 'P/3' to this petition; (b) a writ or writs in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 to put up the name of the petitioner in the new class routine dated 5.10.2010 to this Annexure 'P/16' to this petitioner." 22. Interestingly, the University was not a respondent in WP 12104 (W) of 2007, yet, it suffered a direction to regularize the writ petitioner's service. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the University carried the said order dated December 24, 2010 in an intra-court writ appeal (AST 506 of 2011). It also made applications for leave to appeal (ASTA 232 of 2011) and stay of operation of the order impugned (ASTA 231 of 2011). 23. An Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by its order dated July 4, 2011 granted leave to appeal. While considering the application for stay, Their Lordships considered the appeal itself and disposed of the same by passing the following order: "Upon hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, we think that instead of deciding this matter at the application stage, we should take up hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing, treating as on day's list and dispensing with all the formalities as required for hearing of the appeal finally. It is alleged by the appellants before us that the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 having practised fraud upon the court, has obtained an order previously and on the strength of that order, he seeks regularization of appointment and indeed has been working factually. According to the appellants, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 did not have the requisite qualification and how the appointment could be given, even at that point of time, is not understood. We find them the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Judge that previously learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order directing regularization of appointment and that order was not appealed against and the learned trial Judge has noted that the said order has to be carried out. We find them the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Judge that previously learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order directing regularization of appointment and that order was not appealed against and the learned trial Judge has noted that the said order has to be carried out. The appellant No.1 before us has come into being recently on an enactment which is called the Aliah University Act, 2007. Mr. Amal Baran Chattejee, however, disputes the allegation levelled against his client. Learned Government Pleader also supports the submission of Mr. Panja. We are not observing anything on this issue. But it is settled law that fraud vitiates everything at any stage and the plea of fraud can be examined by the court in any proceedings; even in a collateral proceedings and this principle is well settled not only by Hon'ble Supreme Court but by Privy Council. One of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1994) 1 SCC page 1, comes in the mind of the Court. Hon'ble Justice Kuldip Singh, speaking for the Bench, had rules before we iterate (sic). Whether there had been actually fraud or not whether there had been any decision earlier; are unresolved issues and it could not be raised by the appellants, as they did not have any chance to put forward the case of fraud. Mr. Chatterjee submits that in past, such bogie of fraud was taken by various persons and the court has decided the issue decisively and over-ruled the objection and passed mandatory order of regularization. We are not scrutinizing all these submission. We think that the matter has to be remanded for fresh hearing as the appellants should have been impleaded as party respondents as they are necessary parties and particularly when a mandate has been given upon them. Accordingly, we keep the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge, impugned before us, in abeyance and it should not be acted upon till the learned trial Judge takes a fresh decision. We also add the appellant as party respondents in the writ petition on which the impugned order was passed and the appellants' names shall be incorporated in the body of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is restored on file for fresh hearing. We also expedite hearing of the writ petition. We also add the appellant as party respondents in the writ petition on which the impugned order was passed and the appellants' names shall be incorporated in the body of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is restored on file for fresh hearing. We also expedite hearing of the writ petition. The appellants being added respondents to the writ petition shall make ready affidavit in opposition ready by affirmation within that time. The writ petitioner/respondent No.1 viz. Mr. Chatterjee's client shall make the affidavit in reply ready by affirmation within two weeks thereafter. We are informed that another writ petition (W.P. 1255(W) of 2011 - Marjamal Haque -vs- Aliah University and Ors.) has been filed by Mr. Chatterjee's client for allotment of duty. The writ petition is awaiting decision. Accordingly, we desire both the writ petitions should be heard by one Bench analogously, one after another. In view of the aforesaid order, the contempt proceedings, until fresh decision is taken on the writ petition, shall not be proceeded with. We request the learned trial Judge to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of production of this order. If the affidavits are made ready by affirmation within the time as mentioned by us, the learned trial Judge will accept the same and decide the matter accordingly. If no affidavit is made ready by affirmation within the stipulated time, then the matter will be heard out in absence of the affidavit of the defaulting party. Upon hearing, if the learned trial Judge feels that the order impugned is retainable then the embargo put in by this Court will stand lifted and it will of course be open to the learned trial Judge to decide the matter in a manner of His Lordship thinks fit and proper. Similarly, the learned trial Judge may reverse or vary or modify the impugned order. We record that we have not decided anything on the merit of this matter. Let a copy of the writ petitions, on which the impugned order was passed, be supplied to the learned Advocate-on-record of Mr. Panja by the Advocate-on-record of Mr. Chatterjee in course of tomorrow. To facilitate Mr. Panja's client to make the affidavit in opposition ready, a copy of the writ petition is handed over to Mr. Let a copy of the writ petitions, on which the impugned order was passed, be supplied to the learned Advocate-on-record of Mr. Panja by the Advocate-on-record of Mr. Chatterjee in course of tomorrow. To facilitate Mr. Panja's client to make the affidavit in opposition ready, a copy of the writ petition is handed over to Mr. Panja in Court today and after having got a copy of the same, he will return the it immediately. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal and connected application stands disposed of. Allegations contained in the application for stay are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents, since no affidavit in opposition has been called for." 24. An affidavit-in-opposition to WP 1255 (W) of 2011 was sworn on behalf of the University on December 8, 2010 and it might have been served on the learned advocate for the writ petitioner, as it appears from an endorsement at page 259 of the paper book. Also included in the Paper Book is an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the University to WP 12104 (W) of 2007, sworn on an unspecified day of August, 2011 (pages 58 to 118 of the Paper Book). However, since the order dated July 4, 2011 required the affidavit of the University to WP 12104 (W) of 2007 to be sworn before July 25, 2011 and no affidavit-in-opposition was available in the records coupled with the direction that the two writ petitions had to be considered one after the other, the learned Judge did not consider the affidavit of the University dated December 8, 2010 while His Lordship proceeded to consider WP 12104 (W) of 2007 along with WP 1255 (W) of 2011. We condemn the advocate-on- record for the appellants to include copy of the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the University to WP 12104 (W) of 2007 despite the same not forming part of the records of the writ proceedings. 25. Be that as it may, the conclusion recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment and order that the appointment of the writ petitioner was neither illegal nor irregular was based on the following findings: (a) The appointment of the writ petitioner is not vitiated by fraud and the plea of fraud, raised by the University, is in the air. (b) The University not having dealt with the pleadings by filing an affidavit-in-opposition within time, that attracted the doctrine of non- traverse and the claim of the writ petitioner must be deemed to have been admitted by the University. (c) No explanation was forthcoming as to why the Principal, Calcutta Madrasah did not object to the appointment of the writ petitioner earlier. (d) The appointment letter issued to the writ petitioner was not signed only by the Principal, Calcutta Madrasah but by others too; and such other signatories had not disowned their signature and did not say that the appointment letter is fake. (e) The elder brother of the writ petitioner had been appointed in the Calcutta Madrasah initially on adhoc basis and later on his service was regularised and the writ petitioner, being similarly situate, was entitled to similar treatment. (f) The appointment letter issued to the writ petitioner, the order of the writ court dated September 30, 1997 and the subsequent documents were enough to show a valid appointment. 26. It would appear on a bare reading of the order dated July 4, 2011 of the Hon'ble Division Bench that the University had alleged fraud against the writ petitioner. A mere allegation of fraud is not sufficient; it has to be pleaded and proved. The University having chosen not to file an affidavit dealing with the pleadings in WP 12104 (W) of 2007 within the time limited by such order, Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate for the appellants has endeavoured to impress upon us that even without such an affidavit, fraud committed by the writ petitioner in collusion with others is writ large over the proceedings and the writ petitioner was not entitled to any relief from the writ court. 27. We shall refer to the contentions of Mr. Kar at a subsequent stage after we deal with a contention, apparently having sufficient merit, which has been raised by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader for the State of West Bengal and its officials. We record here that such a contention was raised by Mr. Mukherjee after we had initially reserved judgment on May 3, 2018. By an order dated May 10, 2018, the earlier order reserving judgment was recalled and the appeal heard afresh but limited to such contention based on the affidavits that were invited by us. 28. We also record here the inability of Mr. Mukherjee after we had initially reserved judgment on May 3, 2018. By an order dated May 10, 2018, the earlier order reserving judgment was recalled and the appeal heard afresh but limited to such contention based on the affidavits that were invited by us. 28. We also record here the inability of Mr. Bhandari, or Mr. Adhikary, learned advocate who subsequently appeared before us leading Mr. Bhandari, to counter it effectively. 29. The contention which Mr. Mukherjee raised on May 10, 2018 and thereafter, was this. Calcutta Madrasah, established sometime in the eighteenth century, was all along a Government educational institution. It was converted into a college and named the Calcutta Madrasah College sometime in the early part of the present century. The Aliah University Act, 2007 was published in the Kolkata Gazette on February 20, 2008 after receiving the assent of the Governor on the same date. Upon such enactment being enforced, the Calcutta Madrasah College stood dissolved and all its properties, movable and immovable, and all rights and privileges as well as debts, liabilities and obligations stood transferred to and vested in the University. The Government of West Bengal in the Finance Department, Audit Branch, vide notification bearing no. 5691-F dated July 28, 1981 had notified the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1981. The staff of the "Calcutta Madrassa (Arabic Department)", entitled to the revised scale of pay as mentioned in the schedule to the 1981 Rules, included the post of English teacher. Further, by a notification dated May 20, 1986, Rules governing recruitment to the teaching posts in Government High and Junior High Schools and Government Madrasahs in the West Bengal Subordinate Educational Service, had been notified. These rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Appointments were being made from the late eighties of the last century in the Calcutta Madrasah by the DSE pursuant to recommendations made by the State Public Service Commission (hereafter the PSC). Our attention was drawn to a specimen copy of appointment letter dated July 15, 1988 issued by the DSE (at page 19 of the supplementary affidavit dated August 2, 2018), whereby one Shri Fazal Mohammad Litif was appointed as Assistant Master in the A. P. Department of the Calcutta Madrasah on the recommendation of the PSC. Our attention was drawn to a specimen copy of appointment letter dated July 15, 1988 issued by the DSE (at page 19 of the supplementary affidavit dated August 2, 2018), whereby one Shri Fazal Mohammad Litif was appointed as Assistant Master in the A. P. Department of the Calcutta Madrasah on the recommendation of the PSC. Referring to an advertisement bearing no.17/92 issued by the PSC, it was shown that applications had been invited from eligible candidates for appointment as "Professor of Hadith and Tafsir in the Calcutta Madrasha (Arabic Department) in W.B.G.S. (education)". The posts of teachers in the Calcutta Madrasah, thus, being part of the constituted service of the Government are civil posts and all the employees of the Calcutta Madrasah are employees of the State Government. Hence, any service related dispute including a dispute relating to recruitment therein ought to have been raised before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereafter the 1985 Act) at the first instance. The Central Government had appointed December 21, 1994 as the date on which the provisions of the 1985 Act, insofar as they relate to the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, shall come into force and also that by a notification dated January 13, 1995, the Governor was pleased to specify, in exercise of power conferred by section 5(8) of the 1985 Act, the place at which the Principal Bench of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal shall ordinarily sit. 30. The line of argument perused by Mr. Mukherjee was that as on September 30, 1997, when the first of the three writ petitions of the writ petitioner was moved before this Court, the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal was functional in the State and, therefore, the learned Judge who disposed of WP 23970 (W) of 1997 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. It was contended that the order dated September 30, 1997, which is the sheet anchor of the writ petitioner's claim, is hit by the principle of coram non judice and the fact that such point had not been raised at any earlier stage of the several proceedings before this Court is irrelevant and immaterial, having regard to umpteen decisions of the Supreme Court on the point starting with the decision in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, reported in AIR 1954 SC 340 . Based on the same argument, he contended that WP 12104 (W) of 2007 too at the time it had been presented was not maintainable before this Court. 31. The point raised by Mr. Mukherjee goes to the root of the matter and the submissions made by him are weighty. Indeed, apart from acceptance of the aforesaid contentions and without looking into any affidavit of the Government/University, the point can also be decided referring to a particular letter which was a part of WP 12104 (W) of 2007 itself. At page 51 of the Paper Book is a letter bearing memo no. 17/P-121 dated February 6, 2007 issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Calcutta Madrasah College addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Minorities Development & Welfare and Madrasah Education Department. As is found in letter heads of Government departments, the letter head used for writing the letter has the national emblem printed on it. Calcutta Madrasah College is described within brackets as the "First Govt. College in India". The contents of such letter read as follows: "Sub : Alleged misconduct of Sk. Sahanul Haque With reference to your letter bearing no. 64-MD dt.18.01.07 on the subject noted above I am to state that Mr. Sk. Sahanul Haque was appointed as Teacher in English in the Arabic Deptt, Calcutta Madrasah (Presently Calcutta Madrasah College) on adhoc basis w.e.f. 08-04-88 in terms of Director of School Education's Memo No ...illegible... dt. 14-3-91 and was subsequently regularised w.e.f. ...illegible... on the same post in terms of G.O. No.215-SE (S) dt. ...illegible... read with G.O. No 322 (SE (A) dt. 17-4-98. From the service book of Mr. Haque it appears that his appointing authority is School Education Deptt. Govt. of West Bengal." 32. The last paragraph of the said letter, unfurling a circumstance from the service book of the writ petitioner's elder brother, Sk. Sahanul Haque, appears to be clinching. The appointing authority of Sk. Sahanul Haque was the School Education Department. Such department, or for that matter, the DSE, would not be the appointing authority for staff of educational institutions in the State ~ teaching or non-teaching ~ unless, of course such institution is a Government institution as distinguished from an aided institution wherefor its Managing Committee would be the appointing authority. Sahanul Haque was the School Education Department. Such department, or for that matter, the DSE, would not be the appointing authority for staff of educational institutions in the State ~ teaching or non-teaching ~ unless, of course such institution is a Government institution as distinguished from an aided institution wherefor its Managing Committee would be the appointing authority. Unless an institution over which the Government has full control ~ administrative, functional and financial ~ the letter head of such institution would not have the print of the national emblem on it. These circumstances, coupled with the framing of the Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1981 and the rules under Article 309 of the Constitution for appointment of teaching staff based on the recommendation of the PSC, leave no manner of doubt that the teaching posts in the Calcutta Madrasah were civil posts and service rendered by a staff thereof was service under the State Government; hence, there is ample substance in Mr. Mukherjee's contention that WP 23970 (W) of 1997 was not maintainable before this Court when it was moved on September 30, 1997. Also, there being a question of jurisdiction to receive such writ petition and the writ court having entertained, tried and disposed of a writ petition involving a subject matter over which it had no jurisdiction, the order dated September 30, 1997 suffers from an incurable defect of jurisdiction and has to be regarded as a nullity. In view of Kiran Singh (supra), the conclusion is inescapable that invalidity of a decree or an order owing to such defect of jurisdiction could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings, and it (the defect) cannot be cured even by the consent of the parties; therefore, the writ petitioner was not entitled to reap any benefit from the order dated September 30, 1997. The impugned judgment and order proceeds on the premise that the right to have his service regularised crystallised in favour of the writ petitioner once such order attained finality. In view of what we have held in regard to the said order, the plinth of the writ petitioner's case in WP 12104 (W) of 2007 does not survive and anything built thereon crumbles and falls to pieces. 33. In view of what we have held in regard to the said order, the plinth of the writ petitioner's case in WP 12104 (W) of 2007 does not survive and anything built thereon crumbles and falls to pieces. 33. By the order passed by us on May 10, 2018, we had required Mr. Mukherjee to apprise us whether the recruitment rules contained in the notification dated May 20, 1986 had been published in the Calcutta Gazette or not. Publication in the Calcutta Gazette could not be shown but reliance placed by Mr. Mukherjee on the decision in T. Narasimhulu & ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & ors., reported in (2010) 6 SCC 545 , appears to be apt. Certain rules framed under Article 309 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was under consideration before the Supreme Court. Having regard to the law declared therein (paragraphs 12 and 15), publication in the Gazette would be required if there is an express requirement and in the absence of any such requirement of publication in the Gazette, publication in a manner so as to make the people aware would be sufficient. No case was made out by the writ petitioner in any of his writ petitions that no publication was ever made. The rules so framed under Article 309 of the Constitution were published vide notification bearing no. 349-Edn. (A/SE) dated May 20, 1986 of the Appointment Branch of the School Education Department and we see no reason to hold that non-publication of the rules in the Gazette is a vitiating factor. 34. For the same reasons as aforesaid, WP 12104(W) of 2007 was also not maintainable before the writ court when it was moved during the summer vacation of 2007 of this Court. The remedy of the writ petitioner, if at all, was to move the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. 35. We, however, do not wish to rest our conclusions only on the above discussion and would now proceed to consider the contentions raised by Mr. Kar, duly assisted by Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate and the counter contentions raised by Mr. Adhikary, duly assisted by Mr. Bhandari. 36. Mr. Kar's contentions are encapsulated below: (i) Entry of the writ petitioner in service was illegal. No procedure was followed. He was not subjected to any selection process. Kar, duly assisted by Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate and the counter contentions raised by Mr. Adhikary, duly assisted by Mr. Bhandari. 36. Mr. Kar's contentions are encapsulated below: (i) Entry of the writ petitioner in service was illegal. No procedure was followed. He was not subjected to any selection process. Not only did he not face any competition from others, he did not even possess the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of a teacher. The extant guidelines regulating recruitment in madrasahs required a prior permission to be obtained from the authorities (State Government) for making appointments, but no such permission was obtained. Even no resolution of the Governing Body of the Calcutta Madrasah in this regard is on record. Having regard to the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , an illegal appointment cannot be regularised. (ii) Although the writ petitioner claimed to have joined as a teacher on January 19, 1994, allegedly upon being asked by a learned retired Judge of this Court, the purported appointment letter is dated March 27, 1994. Such appointment with retrospective effect is itself doubtful having regard to the fact that the signatory of such letter (the then incumbent Principal of the Calcutta Madrasah) subsequently by a communication dated June 30, 2006 addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of the Calcutta Madrasah disowned his signature on the letter dated March 27, 1997 and stated that it was fake. Even otherwise, the signature on the purported appointment letter does not tally with the signature on the communication on a plain visual comparison. Thus, the very foundation of the writ petitioner's claim is based on fraud. Having committed fraud on Court by relying upon a fake document while projecting that he had been appointed on January 19, 1994 and since fraud vitiates the most solemn of acts, the order dated September 30, 1997 did not create any right in his favour. (iii) The document being annexure 'A' to WP 23970 (W) of 1997 is also a very suspect document. The type-written body of the letter dated January 19, 1994 at paragraphs 1 and 2 refer to "Calcutta Madrasah College" and "College", respectively. (iii) The document being annexure 'A' to WP 23970 (W) of 1997 is also a very suspect document. The type-written body of the letter dated January 19, 1994 at paragraphs 1 and 2 refer to "Calcutta Madrasah College" and "College", respectively. In 1994, the Calcutta Madrasah College was not in existence (the madrasah was converted to a college sometime in 2006) and it is difficult to digest as to how reference to the college could be made in 1994. Significantly, this letter has not been annexed by the writ petitioner in any of his subsequent pleadings. There is, thus, sufficient reason to believe that a manufactured document was utilised by the writ petitioner for obtaining relief from the writ court. (iv) The circumstances of disposal of WP 23970 (W) of 1997 and thereafter are also rather queer. Although there was no pleading in such writ petition regarding any urgency warranting dispensation of the requirements of Rule 27 of the Writ Rules framed by this Court relating to service of copies of the writ petition on the respondents, the learned Judge did so dispense and recorded the same in the first paragraph of the order dated September 30, 1997. Our attention was drawn to page 290 of the Paper Book [paragraph 4qa of the affidavit-in-reply of the writ petitioner to the affidavit-in- opposition to WP 1255 (W) of 2011 of the University and its officers], to show that the learned "Government panel Advocate", upon whom service of a copy of the writ petition had been directed to be made by the learned Judge in course of the day and whose engagement the Legal Remembrancer was directed to regularise, was none other than the son of the learned retired Judge who, the writ petitioner claimed, had requested him to join as a teacher on January 19, 1994. Not only that, the writ petition was disposed of with a mandatory direction for regularisation of the service of the writ petitioner on the first day the writ petition was moved without even calling for affidavits. Surprise of surprises, the said learned advocate wrote to the respondents in the writ petition on September 30, 1997 itself, requesting for compliance of the order forthwith, and the writ petitioner must have been given a copy thereof or else the same would not have been a part of the annexures to CPAN 171 of 1998. Surprise of surprises, the said learned advocate wrote to the respondents in the writ petition on September 30, 1997 itself, requesting for compliance of the order forthwith, and the writ petitioner must have been given a copy thereof or else the same would not have been a part of the annexures to CPAN 171 of 1998. All these circumstances taken together are sufficient for the Court to draw an inference that the proceedings were unfairly conducted and the University not having been in existence then and not being bound by the order dated September 30, 1997, is entitled to question the same in subsequent proceedings that have been initiated by the parties. (v) Assuming that the order dated September 30, 1997 does not suffer from any defect of jurisdiction or otherwise, it required the writ petitioner to submit a representation before the DSE for regularisation of his service within a fortnight from date, i.e. by October 15, 1997, and a decision had to be taken by the DSE with regard to regularisation by December 31, 1997, the time limit being peremptory and mandatory. Admittedly, the writ petitioner submitted a representation on October 24, 1997, i.e., beyond the time fixed by the Court. Having not complied with the order, there was no crystallisation of any right in favour of the writ petitioner. (vi) The writ petitioner was asked by the Government officers from time to time to [produce the original letter of appointment but he did not do so despite several opportunities. In such circumstances, the endeavour of the Government to have the documents and credentials verified, without any positive result, suggest that the writ petitioner's claim is doubtful. (vii) Having initiated action for contempt by filing CPAN 171 of 1998, the writ petitioner should have pursued the same to its logical end but does not appear to have done so until 2004 when he resumed his efforts for having his service regularised. Under threat of contempt the officers of the Government might have issued letters evincing intention to comply with the order dated September 30, 1997 but that does not, in any way, abrogate or curtail the University's right to pursue this appeal having regard to the conduct of the writ petitioner and the other circumstances that have surfaced in course of hearing of the appeal. (viii) The learned Judge while rejecting the plea of the University that the ex-Principal of the Calcutta Madrasah had himself disowned the signature appearing on the so-called appointment letter dated dated March 27, 1997, misdirected himself in believing that such appointment letter had been signed by three persons and the others had not disowned their signature. It was shown to us from the copy available at page 31 of the Paper Book that the Principal was the only signatory and thus the learned Judge erred in holding in favour of the writ petitioner. (ix) The learned Judge grossly erred in dismissing the contentions raised on behalf of the University before His Lordship as lacking in substance and that the guidelines of 1995 were not applicable to the writ petitioner, he having joined on January 19, 1994. The 1995 guidelines were preceded by previous guidelines containing similar provisions and brushing aside the same by the learned Judge was not proper. (x) The impugned judgment and order suffers from error of law as well as facts and non-application of mind too, for which the same is liable to be set aside. 37. Prior to persuading us recall the order dated May 3, 2018 reserving judgment, Mr. Mukherjee had chipped in with the point that the Calcutta Madrasah was an aided institution to which the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 applied, and in terms of rule 28 thereof no appointment on any sanctioned post of teacher could have been made by the Managing Committee of such institution except in accordance with the directions/guidelines issued by the DSE. The appointment of the writ petitioner was made not only in breach of the provisions regarding selection but also without the prior permission of the Government and hence, his appointment was totally illegal. 38. Opposing the appeal, Mr. Bhandari commenced his argument by urging that the writ petitioner has been given a raw deal. The writ petitioner had spent his entire life teaching the students to build their lives but finds himself, after more than two decades since his appointment, at the receiving end. The nature of allegations levelled against the writ petitioner, namely that he had committed fraud at the inception or that his appointment was nothing but illegal, is not what he expected so late in his life. 39. The nature of allegations levelled against the writ petitioner, namely that he had committed fraud at the inception or that his appointment was nothing but illegal, is not what he expected so late in his life. 39. Terming the appointment of the writ petitioner legal and contending that the order dated September 30, 1997 did not suffer from any infirmity, and further that it had attained finality by reason of no appeal having been preferred therefrom, Mr. Bhandari took great pains to take us through all the pleadings as well as the documents annexed to the several affidavits that the writ petitioner had filed in course of the proceedings before us to drive home the point that a conspiracy had been hatched by an Officer-in-Charge of the Calcutta Madrasah with the officials of the Department of Minority Affairs and Madrasah Education as well as the University to deprive him of the fruits of his labour. He argued that the learned Judge made a painstaking effort and after lifting the veil was of the view that the writ petitioner had been wronged and, accordingly, granted relief which was just and proper in the circumstances; and the impugned judgment and order not being perverse, should not be interdicted by us in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. 40. Countering the contentions of Mr. Kar and Mr. Mukherjee, Mr. Bhandari submitted that the same were raised with a view to confuse the Court and being entirely without merit, deserve to be overruled. 41. With the advent of Mr. Adhikary, at a stage when the proceedings were on the verge of being closed, we heard a different argument. Such argument is also reflected from the written notes of arguments that the writ petitioner was permitted to file. Unusually, such written notes are on a sworn affidavit of the writ petitioner. 42. Mr. Adhikary did not go so far to contend that the writ petitioner's appointment was in any way legal, but submitted that it could be termed 'irregular'. Such argument is also reflected from the written notes of arguments that the writ petitioner was permitted to file. Unusually, such written notes are on a sworn affidavit of the writ petitioner. 42. Mr. Adhikary did not go so far to contend that the writ petitioner's appointment was in any way legal, but submitted that it could be termed 'irregular'. It was contended that if indeed the State and the appellants are inclined to view the order dated September 30, 1997 as one without jurisdiction, there was no valid order by virtue of which the writ petitioner continued to discharge the duty of a teacher; and having regard to the decision in Uma Devi (supra), he urged us to hold that an irregular appointment which has continued for years together without intervention of any court order could be regularised as a special measure. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in T. Narasimhulu & ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & ors., reported in (2010) 6 SCC 545 , to persuade us sustain the impugned judgment and order. 43. We have heard the parties, perused the pleadings as well as the documents on record and considered the written notes of arguments that the parties have filed. It is now time to bring an end to the long-winding proceedings, which commenced in this Court as far back as in 1997. 44. Although much has been submitted by the appellants in regard to the undesirable circumstances pertaining to alleged entry in service of the writ petitioner as well as disposal of WP 23970 (W) of 1997 by the order dated September 30, 1997, we do not wish to dilate on that aspect at all. The appellants seek that the conduct of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court should be put under the judicial scanner. Considering that such Judges are no longer in this world, it would be most inappropriate to proceed further to decide the appellants' contention. We allow the matter to rest. 45. The appellants seek that the conduct of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court should be put under the judicial scanner. Considering that such Judges are no longer in this world, it would be most inappropriate to proceed further to decide the appellants' contention. We allow the matter to rest. 45. However, having examined the gamut of arguments advanced relating to entry of the writ petitioner in service of the Calcutta Madrasah as a teacher of English in January 1994, we summarise below certain points in respect whereof we have failed to find suitable answers from the writ petitioner and which, in our opinion, inflict a severe blow on his chances of success making it difficult for him to recover. They are: (i) From the factual narrative in WP 23970 (W) of 1997, it is clear as crystal that the writ petitioner claimed to have been appointed on the basis of an order of the President of the Governing Body of the Calcutta Madrasah. There was no whisper of any Governing Body resolution in this regard. However, in his sworn written notes of arguments, the writ petitioner averred that the Governing Body of the Calcutta Madrasah by a resolution had decided to appoint him. No documentary evidence in this regard is on record. Law is well settled that when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law, is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition. In case of a respondent, it must appear from the counter affidavit/affidavit-in- opposition. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter affidavit/affidavit-in-opposition, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. If any authority is required, one may usefully refer to the decision in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 534 . In the absence of either the order of the President of the Governing Body or the resolution of the Governing Body being brought on record, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accept that without any written order/resolution the writ petitioner could have been allowed entry in service of the Calcutta Madrasah. In the absence of either the order of the President of the Governing Body or the resolution of the Governing Body being brought on record, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accept that without any written order/resolution the writ petitioner could have been allowed entry in service of the Calcutta Madrasah. (ii) Normally, joining follows appointment and it is not the other way round. If indeed the writ petitioner was appointed on January 19, 1994 and he joined on the same date, we are left to wonder why issuance of the appointment letter was delayed by more than 3 (three) years (it was issued on March 27, 1997, as the writ petitioner would like us to believe) and appointment made with retrospective effect from January 19, 1994. Issuance of an appointment letter more than 3 (three) years after joining does not commend to us to be an acceptable proposition. (iii) There is no explanation as to why the appointment letter was not issued to the writ petitioner prior to his joining as teacher. Also, whether the writ petitioner made any effort to have the same issued prior to his joining or immediately thereafter, is not too clear from the pleadings. It could be so that the writ petitioner, having been appointed on temporary/adhoc basis might not have mustered courage at the relevant point of time to seek an appointment letter, and rested content once it was issued on March 27, 1997. But what has baffled us is the purported letter dated January 19, 1994 of the incumbent Principal, Calcutta Madrasah addressed to the DSE conveying that the writ petitioner had joined as English teacher in the "Calcutta Madrasah/Calcutta Madrasah College" on the same date as per the order of the President of the Governing Body. That the Calcutta Madrasah College saw the light of the day in 2006 is not disputed. In that view of the matter, it defies all senses of logic and rationale as to how reference to the Calcutta Madrasah College could be made in January, 1994. The contents of such letter are, therefore, mired in controversy and create a thick cloud of suspicion which the writ petitioner has not been able to cut through rendering his claim to be regarded as not a genuine one on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The contents of such letter are, therefore, mired in controversy and create a thick cloud of suspicion which the writ petitioner has not been able to cut through rendering his claim to be regarded as not a genuine one on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. (iv) The said purported letter dated January 19, 1994 of the Principal, Calcutta Madrasah addressed to the DSE was annexure "A" to WP 23970 (W) of 1997. However, in none of the subsequent rounds of litigation that followed before this Court did the writ petitioner rely on the same. An inference can reasonably be drawn that the said letter was deliberately withheld by the writ petitioner in the subsequent rounds of litigation and not relied upon, to evade the consequences that could arise out of reference to and/or placing reliance on a manufactured document; and perhaps, such letter might not have surfaced before us unless we had stressed on the need to look into the pleadings in WP 23970 (W) of 1997. (v) The appointment letter dated March 27, 1997 purportedly issued by Dr. Md. Shahidullah, ex-Principal, Calcutta Madrasah whereby the writ petitioner was appointed with retrospective effect from January 19, 1994, surprisingly, was not on the letter head of the Calcutta Madrasah but on a plain paper although other letters/ correspondence issued by such principal, which have been brought to our notice, were on such letter head. This particular instance could have been an aberration and we do not attach much importance to the appointment being given, not on the letter head, but on a plain paper. However, what strikes us is the signature of Dr. Md. Shahidullah, appearing on the appointment letter. On a visual comparison with the signature of Dr. Md. Shahidullah on other documents, we are pained to record that the signature on the appointment letter does not tally with his signature on the other documents (which are uniform and consistent). The signature on the appointment letter dated March 27, 1997 having been disputed by Dr. Md. Shahidullah himself, who was the alleged signatory, we are left with no other option but to draw appropriate inference that such appointment letter is also a manufactured document. A letter of recent origin, purportedly of Dr. Md. The signature on the appointment letter dated March 27, 1997 having been disputed by Dr. Md. Shahidullah himself, who was the alleged signatory, we are left with no other option but to draw appropriate inference that such appointment letter is also a manufactured document. A letter of recent origin, purportedly of Dr. Md. Shahidullah retracting his earlier version that the appointment letter dated March 27, 1997 was fake, which the writ petitioner produced in course of the proceedings before us, does more harm than good to the writ petitioner. The signature thereon leaves enough room for doubt as to whether it was at all issued by Dr. Md. Shahidullah. That apart, it is clear from the contents that the letter was procured by the writ petitioner to suit his case. Such a letter lends credence to the appellants' contention that there is much more than what meets the eyes behind the writ petitioner's alleged appointment as a teacher in the Calcutta Madrasah. (vi) Surprisingly, the learned Judge recorded that there was more than one signatory and that they had not disowned their signature and, therefore, the version of the said principal is unworthy of credence. The appellants seem to be right in their contention that the learned Judge misdirected himself in this behalf. Having perused the appointment letter dated March 27, 1997, we have neither been able to be ad idem with the observation of the learned Judge nor could Mr. Bhandari persuade us to agree therewith. 46. In our considered view, the above are sufficient to uphold the contentions of the appellants that the writ petitioner's claim was unworthy of acceptance and the learned Judge erred in allowing WP 12104 (W) of 2007. 47. Let us now examine the point argued by Mr. Adhikary that the writ petitioner's entry in service was irregular, and not illegal. 48. The discussions in paragraph 45 (supra) lead to the unmistakable conclusion that the writ petitioner's appointment as an English teacher in the Arabic Department of the Calcutta Madrasah was absolutely illegal. None cared to check the writ petitioner's qualifications. He must have been the beneficiary of misplaced sympathy, for, there was no semblance of fairness and compliance with Article 16 in regard to appointment on a public office. None cared to check the writ petitioner's qualifications. He must have been the beneficiary of misplaced sympathy, for, there was no semblance of fairness and compliance with Article 16 in regard to appointment on a public office. A fair and transparent process of selection being the sine qua non for appointment, appears to be least present in the minds of those giving false hopes to him. Despite the writ petitioner maintaining silence between 1998 and 2004, he was allowed to resume duty as late as in 2007 only upon a learned Judge making an interim order to that effect on May 30, 2007. Also, the officials in the School Education Department proceeded to make orders ostensibly favourable to the writ petitioner on being informed of the order dated September 30, 1997 passed in WP 23970 (W) of 1997 and the pending contempt action (CPAN 171 of 1998). It is, therefore, not a simple case where no orders of court had intervened. On the writ petitioner's own showing, the claim asserted by him rested on the said order dated September 30, 1997. That apart, no law/scheme for regularisation framed by the Government is involved in this case. Neither the decision in Uma Devi (supra) nor the other decisions relied upon by Mr. Adhikary, [Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra & ors. v. State of Orissa & ors., reported in (2014) 4 SCC 583 , and State of J & K & ors. v. District Bar Association, Bandipora, (2017) 3 SCC 410 ] aid the writ petitioner's cause. We, thus, have no other option but to upset the impugned judgment and order. 49. In the result, for all the reasons as aforesaid, we set aside the judgment and order dated May 7, 2014 passed in WP 12104 (W) of 2007. 50. However, we cannot turn a blind eye to the events that transpired over the years after the orders dated September 30, 1997 and May 30, 2007 were passed. There is some evidence at least of the writ petitioner having been allowed to take classes. He spent the golden years of his life being engaged in legal tussles. This Court too contributed in fair measure to the predicament in which the writ petitioner finds himself now. There is some evidence at least of the writ petitioner having been allowed to take classes. He spent the golden years of his life being engaged in legal tussles. This Court too contributed in fair measure to the predicament in which the writ petitioner finds himself now. Thus, we are also of the considered view that interest of justice would be fairly served if the writ petitioner is directed to be paid some amount for the services rendered by him albeit his service not being free from taint. It is, accordingly, directed that the appellants, within three months from date, shall pay to him Rs.12,00,000.00, if no payment has been released in his favour earlier. If payment has been released, the same shall be suitably adjusted with such amount that we have directed the appellants to pay. 51. The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms together with all pending applications. 52. The parties shall bear their own costs.