Dilip Kumar Basu, J.
1. On 8th July, 1981, petitioner obtained this rule and interim order directing the respondents to maintain status) quo as on date as regards working of the. petitioner in the school concerned for a period of three weeks and respondents have given liberty to pray for extension of the interim order with a notice to the respondents. Subsequently, on 18th July, 1981, the interim order was extended till disposal of the rule. On 15th January, 1988, petitioner desired not to proceed against respondent No. 2, accordingly the rule was discharged so far respondent No. 8 is concerned and otherwise the rule was ready as regards service.
2. Petitioner in his writ petition has contended that petitioner, at all material time, was an Assistant Teacher of Korakathi Junior Basic School. In the year 1975, Satish Chandra Naskar, an Assistant Teacher retired and in the post created by such retirement, petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and volunteered his services till his appointment was regularised. Petitioner's aforesaid application was recommended by the then State Minister of Education, Sri Gobinda Naskar on 18th March, 1977, Deputy Assistant Inspector of School, Canning Circle caused an enquiry and found the petitioner working in the said school. In the said inspector's report the Inspecting Officer i.e., Deputy Assistant Inspector of School, Canning Circle observed that on the day of inspection i.e. 18th March, 1977, 141 students out of 207 students were present in the five classes i.e. from class I to class V and four teachers had been rendering services at the material time. Names of the four teachers mentioned in the aforesaid report are as follows :
1. Sunil Kr. Mukherjee
2. Harendra Nath Safui
3. Panchu Gopal Sarkar
4. Barindra Nath Pal.
In the said report it was also observed by the Inspector, inter alia, 'It has been reported that a young man named Dukhiram Sardar, H. S., has been offering voluntary and free service in this school from November, 1975. He was permitted to work as a teacher in this school by the Attendance Committee. I am pleased with the behaviour of the teacher and the taught.' Copy of the aforesaid inspection report is Annexure 'B' to the writ petition.
3. On 15th November, 1978, Sri Sunil Kr. Mukherjee, Head Teacher, made a representation to the President and Secretary, of the District School Board, 24 Parganas, and the said representation was recommended by Deputy Assistant Inspector of School, Canning' Circle as on 18th November, 1978, recomending absorbtion of the petitioner and admitting the factum of his voluntary service since 1976. The aforesaid application dated 15th November, 1978 was again forwarded by Deputy Assistant Inspector of School, Canning Circle on 18th January, 1979 by recording, inter alia, 'Forwarded, Sri Dukhiram Sardar has been serving in Korakati Junior Basic School for more than three years. I found him working in the school with sincerity and devotion. He is really a poorman. The Statement of the Head Teacher seems to be a fact. Sri Sardar belong to a scheduled caste community. He deserves sympathetic consideration.' The letter and recomendation of the Dy. Assistant Inspector of School, Canning Circle, are Annexure C & D to the writ petition. Petitioner has also contended that petitioner had been rendering service in the said school since 1975 and such claim of the petitioner was duly recorded and confirmed by the Head Teacher, Korakati Junior Basic School, Pradhan Nakaighata, Anchal Panchait and other members of the local panchait. Sometime on 26th April 1979, petitioner was directed to appear for an interview on 10th May 1979 at 2 P.M. and he was directed to produce several documents.
4. It has been contended that as the petitioner had been serving in the school for more than 2 years, according to the circular and policy of the State Government, petitioner should be absorbed and appointed in the post of Assistant Teacher and is entitled to get approval of the Education Department. Though an allegation was made against respondent No. 8 that he was appointed by the President, Ad. hoc Committee, illegally and without due process of law and as such the appointment was not maintainable in law and was liable to be withdrawn and/or cancelled. As, at present the respondent No. 8 has been appointed in the school and accordingly petitioner does not want to proceed against respondent No. 8 and at the instance of the petitioner, the rule was discharged as regards respondent No. 8. Though interview was held in terms of interview notice dated 26th April, 1979, petitioner was not informed as regards fate of the interview and as no communication was received by the petitioner. Petitioner had reason to believe that he would be absorbed in the vacancy as he has had requisite qualilcation to be an Assistant Teacher of Junior Basic School for which petitioner had rendered service for about six years.
5. After such interview held by the District School Board, petitioner having had no access to justice from the District School Board, preferred an application under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for a mandamus directing upon the respondents to act in accordance with the law and to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher of the Korakati Junior Basic School.
6. By the interim order passed on 8th July, 1981, and subsequent order extending interim order till disposal of the rule on 18th July, 1981, petitioner was allowed to render his service for an indefinite period and of course, without any remuneration, inasmuch as the result of interview was not communicated to the petitioner nor he was absorbed as Assistant Teacher in the said school.
7. By such interim order and subsequent extension directing the respondents to maintain status quo as on date as regards the working of the petitioner in the said school, petitioner has been rendering service and the rule issued by this court in the year 1981, now has come up for final hearing.
8. This court on 21st January, 1988, directed the President and Secretary of the Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, 24-Parganas, South, and District Inspector of School, Primary Section, to furnish a statement in respect of inspection report dated 18th March, 1977 and also 18th January, 1979 which Annexure are B and D to writ petitions and also working papers regarding interview held on 10th May, 1979 within four weeks from date of the communication of the order.
9. At last, the matter attracted attention of the authorities concerned and ultimately on 3rd October, 1988, Mr. Tarun Kr. Roy, learned Advocate appeared and filed an affidavit-in-opposition, affirmed by Sri Ananta Chakraborty, President, Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, on 11th July, 1984. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has been categorically stated that petitioner was never appointed as Assistant Teacher of the Korakati Junior Basic School by or under the authority of the District School Board. In the affidavit of the District School Board, it was not disputed that petitioner had been rendering service in the vacant post of Assistant Teacher voluntarily from November, 1975, In the affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 6 which was affirmed by the President, District School Board on the basis of information derived from the records, admitted, inter alia,
'It appears from the report dated 18th March, 1977, of the Deputy Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle, that the petitioner had been offering voluntary and free service in the Korakati Junior Basic School (hereinafter referred to as the said school) from November, 1975. As such I said this fact of inspection by the Deputy Assistant Inspector of School, Canning Circle, cannot establish the claim of the petitioner to get a regular appointment as Assistant Teacher by the District School Board.'
10. From the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the District School Board, it is crystal clear that petitioner had been rendering voluntary service in the said school since 1975 and sometime in the month of August, 1981 one Smt. Sadhana Das, respondent No. 8 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and joined the school on 7th May, 1981. It will be evident from the averment made in paragraph 7, in the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the President, District School Board on 11th July, 1984, that a memo No. 68 dated 7.8.61 from Sub-Inspector of School, Canning Circle to the Secretary, District School Board, 24-Parganas, forwarded a letter dated 6th August, 1981, addressed by Sri Sunil Kr. Mukherjee, Head Teacher to the Secretary of the District School Board, 24-Parganas. Of course this letter of the Headmaster dated 6th August, 1981, duly forwarded by Sub-Inspector of School on 7th August, 1981 was addressed to the Secretary, District School Board, only after receiving a letter from the learned Advocate of the High Court, presumably, communicating the order passed by the High Court on 8th July, 1981, in the instant writ petition. The President, District School Board has contended in the affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 7, inter alia, 'It appears from the said letter dated 6th August, 1981 of the respondent No. 8 that in the year 1975, after the then Assistant Teacher, Sri Satish Chandra Naskar retired from the said school, a local young man, being the petitioner herein, came to join the said school as an Honorary teacher on the recommendation of the then Minister for Education, Sri Gobinda Chandra Naskar. But since respondent No. 8 raised objection to it, the said Minister was displeased and verbally directed the respondent No. 8 to implement his recommendations. It is also stated in the said letter that the members of the Advisory Committee of the said school did have their consent in it. Being helpless respondent No. 8 drew the attention of the Dy. Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle, to the aforesaid facts. The said Dy. Asstt. Inspector of Schools on 18th March, 1977, inspected the said school and requested the petitioner to continue to render voluntary and free services and verbally requested the respondent No. 8 to keep quite on the issue.'
11. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition the President, District School Board, has contended, inter alia, 'It also appears from records that he even did not seek permission from the appropriate authorities of the concerned respondents before voluntary working in the said school to render service as a Teacher,' which possibly cannot he justified in view of the averments made in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit inasmuch as the said Deputy Assistant Inspector of School, at the time of inspection i.e. on 18th March, 1977, requested the petitioner to continue to render voluntary and free services and also requested the Headmaster to keep quite on the issue.
12. From the claim and counter claim made by the parties through their pleading, the factum of alleged voluntary service rendered by the petitioner from November, 1975, until now i.e. December, 1989 about more than 14 years, cannot be denied. In order to appreciate and examine the correctness of the factum of voluntary service, following sequences of events would be necessary for proper appreciation and effective adjudication of the subject matter of dispute :
November, 1975 : After retirement of Sri Satish Chandra Naskar, Assistant Teacher, working in the permanent post, petitioner was allowed to render voluntary service by the Head Teacher of the school in concurrence with the then State Minister, Education.
18th March, 1977 : Deputy Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle, requested the petitioner to continue and to render voluntary and free service in the said school as Assistant Teacher.
15th November, 1978 : Sri Sunil Mukherjee, Head Teacher, addressed a letter to the Secretary and the President, District School Board, 24- Parganas, requesting for absorption of the petitioner, in the vacancy caused after retirement of Assistant Teacher Sri Satish Chandra Naskar. The said Head Teacher made a representation in favour of the petitioner suggesting that by such appointment the school will be benefited.
18th January, 1979 : AI of School, Canning Circle, forwarded the letter of the Head Teacher to the President, District School Board, with the observation that petitioner had been working in the said junior basic school for more than three years and his service was comendable as he was rendering service with sincerety and devotion. It was also recommended that petitioner Sri Sardar belonged to scheduled caste community and deserved sympathy.
26th April, 1979 : Interview letter bearing serial No. 290/144 issued by Secretary, District School Board, 24-Parganas to appear for an interview on 10.5.1979 (Annexure-G to the writ petition).
10th May, 1979 : Petitioner appeared before the Interview Board at 24 Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta i.e. office of the District School Board, 24-Parganas.
7th April, 1981 : One Smt. Sadhana Das joined this school as Asstt. Teacher who was figured in the writ petitioner as respondent No. 8 but incourse of hearing petitioner did not want to proceed against this teacher as according to the petitioner, he has had no quarrel with Smt.. Sadhana Das, whose appointment would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.
18th May, 1981 : A representation addressed to the President, District School Board, and all concerned by the members of the public and representative of panchyats.
8th July, 1981 : Petitioner moved writ petition. Rule was issued. Interim order was also issued directing the respondents to maintain status quo as on date, as regards the working of the petitioner in the school concerned.
12th July, 1981 : Interim order passed on 8th July, 1981 was extended till disposal of the rule.
6th August, 1981 : Receiving learned Advocate's letter for the petitioner in the matter of rule and interim order granted in favour of the petitioner, Head Teacher addressed a letter to the President admitting the factum of service rendered by the petitioner since 1975. Head Master's letter dated 6.8.81 was duly acknowledged by the President and reference was made in the Affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the President, District School Board, on 11th July, 1984.
13. From the facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the total tenure of voluntary service rendered by the petitioner from November, 1975 upto November, 1989 and still continuing i.e. more the 14 years, can be considered in three phases. 1st phase-from November 1975 till the date of institution of the writ petition i.e. upto 8th July, 1981, when petitioner was allowed to render voluntary service in the post of Assistant Teacher in a permanent vacancy caused due to retirement of Satish Naskar, erstwhile Asstt. Teacher of the said school and with due concurrence obtained from the Head Teacher and the State Minister, Education Department, Govt. of West Bengal. And in the 2nd phase, from 8th July, 1981 to 11th July, 1984, petitioner did continue his service not only with the permission of the Advisory Committee of the School and Head Teacher of the said school with concurrence of the said Education Minister, and duly authorised by the Dy. Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle but also request and/or representation by the Dy. Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle and also armed with the interim order passed by the court. And in the third phase, from 11th, July, 1984 uptil now, petitioner has been rendering voluntary service with :-(1) Initial request/order of the Dy. Assistant Inspector of Schools, Canning Circle ratifying action of the Head Teacher in concurrence with the recommendation of the State Minister of Education, (II) Within the knowledge of the President, District School Board and subsequent ratification by the President in the affidavit filed on 1.1th July, ,1984, (III) Armed with an order of the High Court passed in the instant rule which was extended on 12th July, 1981, till disposal of the rule.
14. From the facts and the admitted sequence of events in the life of the petitioner, it cannot be denied that during November 1975 to May 1981, there was a vacancy caused due to retirement of Sri Satish Naskar and only on 7th May, 1981, one teacher Smt. Sadhana Das was appointed in the said school, presumably, through a process of interview held on 10th May, 1979, in which petitioner had the opportunity to appear before the interview Board.
15. In course of hearing this court, by order dated 4th April, 1980, directed the District School Board Authorities through the learned Advocate appearing for the District School Board to furnish better particulars in respect of the following.
1. The date of interview when the petitioner was directed to appear,
2. Number of persons appeared before interview board on the said date,
3. Name of the persons in the Selection Board,
4. Outcome of the interview,
5. Whether any panel was prepared and if so, list of the paneled teachers prepared in terms of the interview,
6. The working papers of the interview held.
16. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction passed on 4th April 1989, President, District School Board, 24-Parganas (North & South) by his memo No. 168/S dated 27th April, 1989 replied through his learned Advocate as follows :-
To
Sri Tarun Kumar Roy, Advocate
High Court, Calcutta
Ref: C.R. No. 15334 (W) of 1981This is to inform him that in pursuaence of the order dated 4.4.89 of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta the undersigned state as follows:
1. Interview were held during the year 1979 in different venue subdivisionwise.
2. About 40,000 candidates appeared before the Interview Board,
3. (i) The D.I. of his nominee.
(ii) Member of the Selection Committee.
(i.e.) (a) The President.
(b) District Inspector of Schools.
(c) Nirod Roychowdhury
(d) Abdul Quyum Molla
(e) Pratul Biswas
(f) Pradip Ganguly
(g) Rathin Ghosh
(h) Ramani Nath
(i) Sadhan Roy.
(iii) Educationist to the concerned sub-division to be nominated by the President.
(iv) Panel of 5656 candidates from both trained and non-trained category were prepared.
(v) Yes-Approved list is preserved by the Board.
(vi) Not readily traceable due to shifting of office two times after Interview.
If necessary this office is ready to produce all documents except working papers of the Interview.
This is for his information and necessary action.
PRESIDENT,
District School Board, 24-Parganas
North & South.
17. Unfortunately President, District School Board, in his reply, through a letter dated 27th April, 1989, addressed to his learned Advocate, did not furnish intelligible and rational reply, only answer is forthcoming from President of the District School Board is vague, incomplete and which has no nexus with the spirit of the question. The answer would not serve any purpose to meet the requirement of the court. So far question No. 1 is concerned, the President of School Board was simply asked to inform this court, inter alia, what was the date of interview and when the petitioner was directed to appear? To that question, a peculiar reply was given, inter alia, that interview were held during the year 1979 in different venue sub-divisipnwise. So far question No. 2 is concerned it was asked that Board should furnish total number of persons appeared before the interview board on the date when petitioner was directed to appear. Answer is forthcoming from the President, District School Board, inter alia, observing viz. about 40,000 candidates appeared before interview board. No reply is forthcoming or no documents or working papers were filed when the Board was asked to file working papers of the interview held. The purpose of this interogatory to the President, District School Board was frustrated and it did not help this court in any manner. It is unfortunate that the President did not come forward with the rational detail before the court for effective adjudication. The only relevant material that was available to this court is an affidavit-inopposition and I think that in the affidavit-in-opposition, the District School Board has made out a case in favour of the petitioner rather than defending their inaction or their inability to absorb the petitioner in the said post who has been allowed to languish without pay for more than a decade. Petitioner had to serve the institution without any salary. Indeed, it is a sorry state of affairs prevailing in the rural areas in the state.
18. Mr. Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to a decision in connection with a matter considered by Susanta Chatterji, J., on September 21, 1989 in Re : Strut. Sukla Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal and Ors. In the aforesaid writ petition, said petitioner was appointed by a Dy. Assistant Inspector of School and she had to work since 1974 without any approval and ultimately she had to come before the writ court. By order dated September 21, 1989, this court, in the aforesaid Sukla Bhat- tacharya's writ petition, (supra) disposed of the writ petition directing the Director of School Education to consider the question of approval in favour of the petitioner, Smt. Sukla Bhattacharya. Pursuant to order passed by this court on September 21, 1989, the Director of School Education had considered the claim of the aforesaid Smt. Sukla Bhattacharya and it was observed by the Director of School Education that in same manner as the instant petitioner was appointed, said Sukla Bhattacharya was appointed and had served the school without remuneration for pretty long years. The Director of School Education considered her claim and decided in favour of the claimant Smt. Sukla Bhattacharya and directed that she should be appointed against any available vacancy in any of the school located within the urban areas of 24-Parganas, North District as early as possible. Director of School Education also directed the Joint Director to cause an enquiry into the authority of the then Dy. Assistant Inspector of School as to how he could issue appointment letter in favour of Smt. Sukla Bhattacharya. So far present petitioner is concerned, admittedly, he was directed to serve the institution by the Minister of State, Education Department, Govt. of West Bengal and down to Dy. Assistant Inspector of Schools of the local circle including Headmaster. It was ratified by the District School Board through its officers. Such approval will be evident from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the President, District School Board, North 24-Parganas. Factum of his service rendered to this school was not disputed and denied. Why then he will not be entitled to the remuneration, he was expected to get, which he had not received uptil now and why he shall not be paid by a public body like District School Board. The authority of a public Body like District School Board and the authority of the Dy. Assistant Inspector of the school and other officers attached to the Education Directorate cannot be ignored and relying upon the authority of such persons and officers attached to the State Government and public body like School Board, the petitioner acted to his prejudice for so many years. Relying upon the representation of the officers with or without authority, petitioner has been rendering service to the school which was duly accepted by the authority and the community.
19. Supreme Court, in Centuries Spinning & ., reported in AIR, 1968 SC 718 it has held that the Government is not exempt from the equity arising out of the acts done by citizens to their prejudice, relying upon the representations as to its future conduct made by the Government. Supreme Court in the aforesaid Anglo-Afghan Agencies case took the afore- said view following observations made by Lord Denning, J., in Robertson v. Minister of Pensions (1949) 1 CAB 227, observing, inter alia, 'The crown cannot be expected by saying that estoppels do not bind the crown for that doctrine has long been exploded. Nor can the crown escape by praying in aid the doctrine of executive necessity, that is, the doctrine that the crown cannot by bind itself so as to better its future executive actions.' Following Robertson's case (Supra) 'Lord Denning, J., was right in extend- ing the rule to a different class of cases as in Falmauth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. v. Howell (1950) 1 ALL ER 538 where Lord Denning observed in page 542 : 'Whenever Government Officers in their dealings with a subject take on themselves to assure authority in a matter with which the subject is concerned, he is entitled to rely on their having the authority which they assume. He does not know, and cannot be expected to know, the limits of their authority, and he ought not to suffer if they exceed it.' Supreme Court has also observed that 'A public body is in our judgment not exempt from liability to carry out its obligation arising out of representations made by it relying upon which a citizen has altered his position to his prejudice.' A question arose as regards the power of the executives, whether administrative order will be deemed to be quasi-judicial order. Supreme Court in A. K. Kraipa and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in : [1970]1SCR457 has considered that 'The dividing line between an administrative power and a quasi-judicial power quasi is quite thin and is being gradu- ally obliterated. For determining whether a power is an administrative power or a quasi-judicial power, one has to look to the nature of the power conferred, the person or persons on whom it is conferred, the frame work of the law conferring that power, the consequences ensuing from the exercise of that power and the manner in which the power is expected to be exer- cised. Supreme Court further observed, inter alia, 'In a welfare State like ours it is inevitable that the organ of the State under our constitution is re- gulated and controlled by the rule of law. In a welfare State like ours it is inevitable that the jurisdiction of the administrative bodies is increasing at a rapid rate. The concept of rule of law, lose its validity if the instrumen- talities of the State are not changed with the duty of discharging their func- tions in fair and just manner. The requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a requirement to act justly and fairly and not arbi- trarily or capriciously. The procedures which are considered inherent in the exercise of a judicial power are merely those which facilitate if not in- sure a just and fair decision.'
20. Now time has come when there should we some guideline for the executives. With the increase of the power and responsibility of the public bodies, it has become imperative to provide and prescribe guidelines for just exercise of the power. The administrative power, as enjoined by the public bodies is nothing but a quasi-judicial power and accordingly to prevent abuse of that power and to see that it does not become new despotism, courts are gradually evolving principles to be observed while exercising such powers in matters touching the affairs of social welfare by the public officers and in the matters dealing with citizens. The executive in their dealing should be fair and just. Though it is neither possible nor desirable to fix the limit of quasi-judicial power but for the purpose of the present case the power exercised by the officers of the Education Department, a Deputy Assistant Inspector, attached to a circle and so also the President of the District School Board, Chief of the District School Board to monitor the primary education of the district, it can be safely presumed that the Officers attached to the public bodies, Government Officers had assumed power. Authority of the Officers cannot deprive a citizen from availing their legal rights. It cannot be considered that due to latches and lapses of a public officer a citizen will suffer. A citizen is not supposed to know the extent of the authority, extent of power enjoined by the particular officer. Relying on the representation of some authorities viz. from State Minister, Education Deptt. down to a Deputy Assistant Inspector/Sub-Inspector of School, attached to a circle, the citizen cannot be deprived of his legal right. The respondent State Government must declare a guideline in the matter of dispensation of executive function by the executive and the public bodies. The persons, who are in the helm of affairs in the public bodies and on the Government Office, should be made accountable for their lapses and latches and no citizen cannot be allowed to suffer any prejudice in any manner whatsoever.
Various social welfare legislations, initiated by Central & State Government, have remained paper tiger without teeth. These social legislations have not been successful in making changes in the life style of the vulnerable section of the society. The weaker section of the society have been continuously fighting with the dominant section of the vested groups not only in the court but also before various public authorities. This matter was initially considered by a State Minister in Education Department and admittedly this is the case of the petitioner as well as the respondents that at the initial stage, at the instance of the State Minister, Education, petitioner was allowed by the Headmaster and so also Sub-Inspector of School of the local circle to act as a teacher in the school. Now the question arises as to the extent of authority of the State Minister, Education, in the matter of appointment. Though it was at the instance of the State Minister but the same was also considered by the Deputy Inspector of School and the petitioner was called upon to face an interview board. Petitioner has been working all along within the knowledge of the respondents District School Board also Deputy Inspector of Schools of the local circle who is a Government Officer attached to the Primary Education of the district and working under District Inspector of School, Primary Education who happens to be the Secretary of the District School Board. I am not called upon to consider the extent of the authority of State Minister, or Deputy Inspector/Sub-Inspector of Schools or President, District School Board or such other persons who are in the public bodies and who are attached to Education Department. But it cannot be denied that from the level of a State Minister, down to Sub-Inspector of School, everybody has got a role to play in the affairs of the administration of the school vis-a-vis appointment of teachers in primary school in the district and management thereof. Basically, in a democratic country, men in the Government are accountable to the people who have voted them to power. If the persons in power so also the bureaucratic mechanism do not respond to the demand of the community for a fair deal and also for effective implementation of the social welfare legislation, the members of the public, can then resort to judicial process in the court of law in preferring and asking for a mandamus before the writ jurisdiction. Admittedly the petitioner before this writ court is fighting with the District School Board and the State Government through District Inspector of School and other officers attached to the school administration. Undoubtedly, the mechanism of delivery system of justice requires a new outlook to inspire confidence in the weaker section of the society because, to them, it is an unequal battle. The petitioner had to come before this writ court against District School Board and also State Government to establish his claim. Undoubtedly this is an unequal battle and the petitioner, being a member of the vulnerable segment of the society, cannot but think that law is nothing but a negative restraining force, mysterious and unaccessable. This court has been compelled to consider this aspect also and I have reason to believe that it is the duty of the court to mould and develop the delivery system of justice into right direction by adopting a new strategy and by interpretation of the laws to sub-serve social and economic justice. On the facts and circumstances I think and hold that the petitioner deserves justice and that too forthwith.
Though I am not called upon to decide and made a comment on the modalities of primary school administration in our State but 1 cannot but hold that in order to regulate the appointment in the primary school some guidelines for the executives should be necessary and I think that to prevent the abuse of the power and to see that power enjoined by the bureaucratics or by the officers and public bodies does not become a new despotism. The modus operandi of a section of people in getting appointment, in approving primary school cannot be overlooked and unless and until some declaration is made at the instance of the State Government and Education Department, this kind of litigation will be inevitable. According to me some declaration ought to have been made and some guidelines ought to have been given to the executives and the public bodies, particularly in the matter of appointment of primary teachers, whether any citizen is entitled to establish a school and to give assurance to the people that as soon as the school will be ap- proved, their appointment will be regularised. There is now no impediment in giving assurance to the people, in getting registration under Society's Act, 1961, in establishing a school just by an investment of few thousands rupees, by constructing a few school rooms and inviting some unemployed youth with some qualifications asking them to render voluntary services till this school is approved by the appropriate authority and in getting some recommendation from the Officers attached to District School Board. State Government may be required to disclose a guideline and if necessary, to declare for the purpose of general information through media that no Government Officer is authorised to request or allow anybody to serve any school, to render voluntary services on the assurance that said services would be regularised as and when the school will be approved by the appropriate authority. It is necessary to declare through all media and newspaper that, without due process of the prescribed regulation, no officer is allowed to appoint anybody, any citizen in any primary school. Some declaration is also necessary whether any primary school can be organised in any particular part/area of the State particularly in the rural area and whether the management of that school is authorised to appoint anybody without any sanction from the District School Board or appropriate authorities. It is also necessary to monitor the affairs of primary school in the State through some infrastructure in the district and the District Inspector of School, with its Sub-Inspector and officers in different circles should be made accountable if this kind of appointment is made either on the recommendation of the Sub-Inspector of School or the Headmaster of any school. If necessary this declaration has to be made in the local daily and people should be informed that the officers have no authority to give assurance to any citizen or to make any recommendation, If this kind of affiairs is placed before the Directorate, the officers concerned, who made such recommendation, should be taken into task or otherwise the whole project and primary education scheme will be frustrated. These matters are required to be considered by the authorities concerned. This recommendation and/or suggestion may not be treated as court's direction, it may be treated as judicial advise to the appropriate authorities for effective and rational administration in primary education of the State.
Possibly any citizen, social worker, benevolent persons, association of persons and voluntary organisation can contribute to the advancement of education in the country, but there must be some rational approach and co-ordination in consonance with the present education policy. This question is required to be considered by the administration who are in the helm of affairs of the Primary Education. Whether a citizen, for primary education and subsequently higher education, can rely upon any individual or benevolent social organisation or any private agency for upbringing his wards effectively. Perhaps, this is the demand of the community to fulfil the aspiration of the individuals.
21. In such view of the matter, I think and hold, that though the petitioner was allowed to work as Assistant Teacher in the vacancy of the permanent post of Assistant Teacher, caused due to the retirement of Sri Satish Chandra Naskar, from November, 1975, petitioner had been working in the said post from 18th March, 1977, effectively with the aid of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, inasmuch as on 18th March, 1977, Deputy Assistant Inspector of School, being a Public Officer and attached to the District School Board, virtually directed him to continue in the said post in the form of a request to continue to render voluntary and free services, which will be evident from the Affidavit-in-opposition, affirmed by the President, District School Board, on 11th July, 1984. Denying justice to the petitioner and not filling up the vacancy caused due to retirement of Satish Chandra Naskar, Assistant Teacher, the respondents have acted in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and have acted arbitrarily and illegally. Accordingly, I do not find any reason why petitioner's service in the said school shall not be reckoned from 18th March, 1977, and why respondents shall not issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner and why his appointment shall not be approved by the respondents.
22.1 Considering the facts and circumstances, as above, I direct the President, District School Board, 24 Parganas, (North & South), respondent No. 4 and District Inspector of School (Primary Education), Dist. 24 Parganas, South, respondent No. 5, to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner, giving retrospective effect from 18th March, 1977.
22.2 Considering the roll strength of the school, if the petitioner cannot be absorbed in the said school and due to subsequent appointment of Smt. Sadhana Das on 7th April, 1981, aforesaid respondents are given liberty to transfer the petitioner from the said school to any school in the vicinity of the said school or within Canning Circle or any circle within Canning P.S., 24 Parganas South.
22.3 Such appointment letter shall be issued within 31st January, 1990 in anticipation of approval from Director of Primary Education, West Bengal, Respondent No. 6.
22.4 Director of Primary Education, West Bengal, is directed to approve the appointment in favour of the petitioner within 20th February, 1990.
22.5 The District Inspector of School, (Primary Education), South 24 Parganas, Director of Primary Education, West Bengal, i.e. respondent Nos. 5 & 6, respectively, are directed to release the salary and allowances in accordance with prescribed scale of pay for the month of January, 1990 and subsequent months thereafter in usual way.
22.6 Arear, in accordance with prescribed scale at the material time, payable to the petitioner during the period 18th March, 1977 to 31st December, 1989, shall be released by 31st March, 1990.
22.7 The respondents are also directed to pay to the petitioner the arear interest @ 12% compounded annually and the said interest amount shall be paid by 30th June, 1990.
22.8 Respondent No. 3, District School Board, 24 Parganas, through the President, District School Board, 24 Parganas (North & South) is direc- ted to pay the petitioner Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation due to humi- liation, indignity suffered so long and for compelling the petitioner to live in distress to unfathomable magnitude for more than 14 years.
22.9 Now that a long drawn legal battle is over and respondents have been directed to release arrear salary from 18th March, 1977 to 31st December, 1989 with interest @ 12% compunded annually within the stipulated dates. I think it is necessary to pass an order in the same terms as was passed in K. C. Joshi v. Union of India : (1985)IILLJ416SC followed by Chief Settlement Commissioner (Rural), Punjab and Anr. v. Ram Singh and Ors. : AIR1987SC1834 . The appellant is entitled to relief under Section 89 because salary and interest which has been arrear for about 14 years and such relief should be given as provided under Section 89 of Income Tax Act read with Rule 21A of the Rules framed under I.T. Act.
22.10. This Rule of 1981 is thus disposed of today long after about eight years.
22.11. A copy of the order be served upon the learned Legal Remem- brancer for communication to the Director of Primary Education, Secretary Education Department, Government of West Bengal for consideration of the observations made in the judgment. The recommendation are not judi- cial orders but these are judicial advice to the State of West Bengal in aid of effective implementation of primary education in the rural area of our State.
22.12 .Registry is directed to issue a certified copy of the order within 2 months from date of deposit of the requisites.
22.13. A copy of the operative part of the order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.