IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

WPA 23416 of 2024

Managing Committee, Vidya Vikash High School (H.S.) and Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya, ld. Sr. Adv.

: Mr. Ashim Kumar Haldar

For the State : Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay

: Ms. Tapati Samanta

: Mr. Arindom Ghosh

Heard on : 17.06.2026

Judgment on : 11.08.2026

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. A letter of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education),

Barrackpur, North 24 Parganas /the 3

rd

respondent [hereinafter

mentioned as “the DI”], dated August 11, 2023 and the letter of the

Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal/ the 2

nd

respondent, dated August 2, 2023, which preceded the letter of the

DI as stated above, have been assailed in the instant writ petition.

2. The impugned letter of the DI is with regard to the subject matter

of approval of appointment of 4 newly recruited assistant teachers

and 2 Group-D staff [the petitioners No.4 to 9 herein] of the

addressee school [the petitioners No.1 to 3 herein].

3. The DI writes in the impugned letter dated August 11, 2023, inter

alia that, approval of appointment cannot be granted in favour of

the petitioners, in terms of letter issued by the 2

nd

respondent

Page 2 of 17

dated August 2, 2023 as the school authority [writ petitioners

Nos.1 to 3] has failed to submit the Minority Educational Institution

Status Certificate, from the competent authority, as prescribed in

Notification No. 378-MD dated April 5, 2012 [herein after referred

to as “No. 378”]. Advice has been given to take steps to obtain

such a certificate, in order to enjoy any privileges as a minority

institution.

4. The 2

nd

respondent writes in his letter dated August 2, 2023,

regarding subject matter of status of the petitioner No.1/school. It

is written inter alia that, the Supreme Court, in order dated

August 4, 2022 [in SLP (C ) No. 8861 of 2021] has granted liberty

to the petitioner school to take appropriate proceedings in the

issue of minority status; the DI has been directed to verify if the

school has obtained a Status Certificate from the competent

authority as prescribed in notification No. 378; that, if no such

Certificate has been obtained by the institution, it ought not to

enjoy any benefit and privilege of a minority school, though it may

take steps to obtain such a Certificate, in accordance with the law.

5. Challenging those orders of the 2

nd

and 3

rd

respondents

respectively, the school as well as the newly appointed teachers

and nonteaching staff thereof, have filed the instant writ petition

together. In the writ petitioner, the petitioners have prayed for the

reliefs that the impugned letters dated 4

th

and 11

th

August, 2023,

respectively by the 2

nd

and 3

rd

respondents may be set aside;

appointments of writ petitioners No.4 to 9 may be directed to be

approved with effect from December 1, 2022, with all

consequential benefits and against sanctioned vacant posts in the

said school; that the petitioner school may be permitted to proceed

with recruitment process for the remaining 17 sanctioned vacant

posts which has already been initiated by virtue of publication of

advertisement in newspapers on November 2, 2022.

Page 3 of 17

6. This case has a long standing chequered back ground. The Court

is principally confronted with a question here with regard to

whether the petitioner school can be treated to be a linguistic

minority institution to have the protection under Article 30 of the

Constitution of India and privilege to be governed under the

Special Rules, promulgated for the minority institutions in the

country. May the Supreme Court‟s order dated August 4, 2022 in

SLP (C ) No. 8861 of 2021, may be looked into at this stage. The

petitioner school filed for Special Leave to Appeal. Relevant portion

of the order is quoted bellow:

“ ………. ………. ………. we do not find any merit in this

case, which is accordingly dismissed.

At this stage, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioners submits that the High Court was

not justified in rendering its opinion insofar as the minority

status of the petitioner-school, under Article 30 of the

Constitution of India, is concerned.

The High Court has held that no plea was made by the

petitioner-school in the writ petition in this regard.

Therefore, any observation relating to this question, if any,

made in the impugned order, is set aside reserving the liberty to

the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings, in this regard.”

7. Therefore, firstly, the Supreme Court has decided about whether

the petitioner/school can claim minority status or not, in negative,

by setting aside any observation relating to the said question, in

the order of High Court, impugned before it. The Supreme Court

has also directed the school to take appropriate proceeding, in this

regard. Undoubtedly this order of Supreme Court is final and

binding on the school.

Page 4 of 17

8. Next is that the appropriate proceeding as directed by the Supreme

Court in the said order for the school is that as prescribed in

notification No. 378. In two separate „Parts‟ the said notification

has made provisions for a new minority institution and an existing

educational institution, that is, under „ Part-I‟ and „Part-II‟

respectively.

9. „Part-II‟ consists the provisions as follows:

“Part-II

Minority Institution Status Certificate for existing educational institution.

2. Criteria to be fulfilled by a recognised educational institution for receiving

Minority Educational Institution Status Certificate:

(a) The educational institution must have been established and administered by the

minorities to serve the interests of the concerned minority community.

(b) An educational institution which a minority community has established but has

subsequently relinquished responsibility of management to other minority or non-

minority, cannot acquire such status. The institution must have been established by

and always be administered by the minority community.

(c) If an organization sponsors the educational institution, such organisation shall get

registered as a Society/Trust/Committee/Association comprising 100% members

belonging to that minority community to which they claim to belong.

(d) The aims and objects of the educational organisation incorporated in its

memorandum/by-laws etc. shall clearly specify that it is meant primarily to serve the

educational interests of the minority community to which they claim to belong, in

letter and spirit.

(e) While admitting students in the Educational Institution, priority shall be given to

the eligible students of the concerned minority community administering the

institution maintaining transparency in admission and the right of admission of a

student of the concerned minority community shall not be curtailed for admitting a

general category student.

(f) The institution, having classes between class-I to class-VIII, has already obtained a

certificate of recognition from the concerned authority under sub-section (1) of

section 18 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

Page 5 of 17

(g) The institution having classes between class-I to class-VIII shall have to fulfil the

conditions given under sections 19 and 25 of the Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

(h) In the case of an aided educational institution, such institution has already

obtained a "no objection certificate" from the Competent Authority empowered by the

respective Department and also has fulfilled conditions, if any, as may be specified in

such certificate.

3. Application for receiving Minority Educational Institution Status Certificate:

(a) A person/organization desirous of obtaining Minority Educational Institution

Status Certificate for an existing institution shall make an application in the proforma

given in Annexure-II along with necessary documentary evidence, affidavits of

undertakings etc. in support of their claim to the Competent Authority in the

Department to which the subject matter of the institution belongs. An unrecognized

educational institution shall not be eligible to apply for Minority Educational

Institution Status Certificate.

(b) The application shall be examined and disposed of after giving an opportunity of

hearing by the Competent Authority within 90 days of the receipt of application

complete in all respect.

(c) An institution established on the basis of "no objection certificate" so granted by

the Competent Authority may also apply for Minority Educational Institution Status

Certificate in the proforma given in Annexure-II on recognition and such application

will be given priority and also be disposed of within 60 days by the Competent

Authority in the department concerned.

(d) If an application is rejected, the Competent Authority shall inform the applicant

about such rejection and reasons thereof.”

** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

“7. General effects after receiving Minority Educational Institution Status Certificate:

(a) Reservation policy for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other

Backward Classes shall not apply in recruitment of Teachers and Staff in Minority

Educational Institutions.

(b) That grant of Minority Educational Institution Status Certificate will not ipso facto

make an unaided educational institution eligible for receipt of Government aid/grants

which will be guided by the general norms concerning such aid/grants.

However, there shall be no bar for the State Government to provide financial

assistance to such Institution for the purpose of educational enlightment and uplift of

the Minority community which will be guided by the general norms concerning such

financial assistance.

Page 6 of 17

(c) Stipend/Scholarship and other such benefits may be allowed to students of such

Institution as per Government norms.

(d) There shall be no discrimination for such minority educational institution for

providing other aids by the Government in consonance with the spirit of article 30(2)

of the Constitution of India.

(e) The Minority Educational Institution after getting such status from the Competent

Authority shall have all rights as granted under section 10A of the National

Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act 2004.

(f) Grant of Minority Educational Institution Status Certificate will not ipso facto

make an unaided educational institution eligible for claiming affiliation from any

University, which will be guided as per the rules and eligibility criteria concerning

such affiliation of the concerned University.”

“Annexure – II

(See Part-II)

To

The Competent Authority,

________________________ Deptt.,

Government of West Bengal,

RE: APPLICATION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTIT UTION STATUS

CERTIFICATE

1. (a) Name and address of the Institution/Society/Trust :

(b) Details of the staff working therein:

(c) Name & Address of the President / Secretary of the Trust / Society :

(d) The year of establishment of the Trust / Society :

(e) Name of the Trust / Society / Charitable Organisation / Others who has established

the institution :

(f) Purpose for which the institution was established – relevant extract of the

memorandum :

(g) Students from which community the institution started for :

2. Whether the application is based on religious or linguistic Minority (give details):

3. Details pertaining to the person/Organization/Society / Trust which is administering

the institution:

(e) Name and Address of the Society / Trust :

(f) Whether it is registered (attach a copy of the certificate of registration) :

Page 7 of 17

(g) Name & Address of the Founding Members / Mutwallis / Trustees and their

religion :

Sl

No.

Name Office Status Occupation Address Religion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

(h) Whether the Memorandum of Association of the person/Organization/Society/Trust has

been amended at any time and if yes, attach the amendments :

4. Details pertaining to the Institution :

(a) The year in which the institution has been established :

(b) Percentage of the students from the minority community presently studying in the

Institution :

(c) Total No. of students belonging to minority community for which the Institution

was initially founded : (Example -- a Christian school will specify

(d) Number of needy students belonging to minority communities (percent) receiving

- :

a) Scholarship :

b) Annual Book Grant :

c) Annual Uniform Grant :

(e) Name & Address of the present trustee / members of the Governing Body and

their religion :

(f) If the institution is recognised / affiliated to any recognised University / Council /

Board etc. provide details :

(i) Whether the recognition / affiliation of institution has been withdrawn by the

Competent authority at any time. If yes, on what grounds?

(ii) Whether the name of the institution or its administration has changed since its

inception and if so the details there of:

Page 8 of 17

(g) If the institution is not affiliated to any recognised University then provide the

name of the University whose programme of studies is followed therein :

(h) If no objection certificate was granted earlier by the Competent Authority, give

details :

(i) Details of conditions fulfilled as required under sub-para (d) of para 9 :

(j) Whether certificate of recognition has been obtained from the concerned authority

by making an application under sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Right of Children

to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (give details) :

(k) Whether "no objection certificate" has been obtained from the appropriate

authority under sub-para (h) of para 2 (give details) :

DECLARATION

I,

___________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

hereby aver that the particulars furnished above are true to the best of my knowledge and that

if any detail is found on verification / inspection to be otherwise, the institution shall forfeit

the minority certificate awarded to it. The decision of the Competent Authority in this regard

shall be final.

Date: ________________________

(Signature of the applicant)

___________________________________________________________________________

___

1. These guidelines shall come into force on the date of its publication in The Official

Gazette.

By order of the Governor,

[ILLEGIBLE],

Chief Secretary to the Govt. of West

Bengal.”

10. Therefore, notification No. 378 consists guidelines for grant of no

objection certificate and Minority Educational Institution Status

Certificate to a minority educational institution. The said

Page 9 of 17

notification derives source from the statutes namely, section 10 of

the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution Act,

2004 and section 18(1) of the Right of Chil dren to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

11. According to section 10 of the Act of 2004, any person who desires

to establish a Minority Educational Institution may apply to the

Competent Authority, for grant of no objection certificate for the

said purpose. Section 18(1) of the Act of 2009 provides that no

school, other than a school established, owned or controlled by the

appropriate government or the local authority, shall, after

commencement of the said Act, be established or function without

obtaining a certificate of recognition from the concerned authority

by making an application in prescribed form and manner.

12. Therefore, secondly, by virtue of the statutory provision as above,

after coming into force the Act of 2009, status of an existing

minority school is barred to be so, which has not applied for and

not obtained a certificate of recognition from the concerned

authority, as per provision under the said Act. Let it be mentioned

that the particular provision as above, of the Act of 2009, has not

been challenged by the petitioners in the instant writ petition.

Admittedly in this case no such application has been filed before

or status certificate has been obtained by the petitioner institution,

from the competent authority as a minority institution already

existing and functioning, at the time of coming into force of the Act

of 2009.

13. The writ petitioners‟ submissions are twofold in this case. Firstly

that, for all the practical purposes for this age-old institution, the

State has recognised its status as a linguistic minority institution.

In this regard, Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya, learned senior

counsel for the petitioners has referred to some documents

Page 10 of 17

annexed with the writ petition. He says that in the letter dated

December 31, 1979, the then Director of School Education West

Bengal has directed the District Inspector of Schools, for

inspection of the school and to furnish a report for recognition of

the said school, acknowledging the same as a Hindi Medium

School set up by the linguistic minorities as a Class-X Hindi

Medium High School, with effect from January 1, 1979. Another

letter dated February 12, 1980, has been referred to in which the

same office writes to the DI again about the roll strength of the

school in connection with its recognition as a school set up by the

linguistic minorities as a Hindi Medium High School. The

petitioners state that in a subsequent letter dated March 31, 1980,

minority status of the school has been similarly acknowledged by

the respondent.

14. Observation made in the Inspection Report dated March 24, 1980

is also relied on, which is as follows:

“Observations: -

According to the declarations furnished by three Ward Commissioners of

Naihati Municipality (encle – 1) there are about a lakh of people in and around

the area. Most of these people are industrial workers and belong to Hindi

speaking minority community here. There is the possibility of the school being

an ideal institution if it is recognised as a Secondary Institution. The case may

be favourably considered.”

15. With reference to letter dated February 1, 1983, by the West

Bengal Board of Secondary Education, it has been submitted that

the authority has recognised the school as a Hindi Medium school,

in which the medium of instruction and 1

st

Language has to be

Hindi.

16. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel has further placed

strong reliance to a notification dated September 23, 2011, issued

by the Minority Affairs and Madrasah Education Department to

submit that in the same, such residents of the State whose mother

Page 11 of 17

tongue is Hindi, have been recognised and declared as Linguistic

Minorities in West Bengal. Therefore, according to the writ

petitioners, the school established and run by the recognised

Linguistic Minority community in the State, ought to have

naturally been treated as a Linguistic Minority institution, thereby

recognising all its special rights and privileges under the

Constitution and the Special laws.

17. Secondly, Mr. Bhattacharyya has submitted that on three

occasions, vide the orders dated December 28, 1995, February 7,

1997 and April 13, 2000, a total of 34 posts of teachers and 3 non-

teaching staff have been sanctioned by the authority for the

institution. Additionally, 23 posts of teachers and 1 post of non-

teaching staff has been sanctioned vide the order dated December

18, 2015. Accordingly, the said institution, by publishing an open

advertisement and initiating a due and thorough recruitment

proceeding, has recruited teachers and non-teaching staff for the

institution, prepared panel and appointed the successful persons.

That the said panel has duly been sent to the DI, for his approval,

which, according to him, the DI is obliged to approve in

accordance with the Rules. In this regard Mr. Bhattacharyya,

learned senior counsel has relied on notification No. 79 -

ES/S/10R-14/2013 dated February 3, 2016, that is, Recruitment

Procedure for the Non-Government Aided (excluding DA getting)

Recognized Institutions Including Junior High Schools and Higher

Secondary Schools established and run by the Minority Community

as per Article 30 of the Constitution of India, [herein after referred to

as “No.79”]. He submits that the entire recruitment process has

been done by the school thoroughly and strictly in compliance with

the provisions under the notification No.79. That, it is as per the

provision of the said notification, that the DI is duty-bound to

approve service of the appointees, who are the writ petitioners in

the instant case.

Page 12 of 17

18. Question is, whether after promulgation of the Right of Children to

Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the notification No.

378, application of those would be optional for any reason, for an

institution, which claims itself to be an existing and already

functioning minority institution. The answer is given by the

Supreme Court in its order dated August 4, 2022, in negative and

has redirected the school to take appropriate steps to obtain

Minority Educational Institution Status Certificate, from the

competent authority.

19. The contention that the petitioner institution, being an existing

and already functioning institution, was not required to make any

application under the Act of 2009 or under Notification No. 378,

cannot be accepted. Section 18(1) of the Act of 2009 is couched in

mandatory terms and, significantly, does not confine its operation

to schools which are proposed to be established after the

commencement of the statute. The statutory expression is that no

school, other than a school established, owned or controlled by the

appropriate Government or local authority, shall, after

commencement of the Act, be established or function without

obtaining the requisite certificate of recognition upon an

application made in the prescribed form and manner. Thus, the

fact that an institution was already in existence and functioning

before the commencement of the Act may have relevance to the

procedure to be followed under Part-II of Notification No. 378,

which specifically deals with an existing educational institution,

but it does not create an exemption from the statutory

requirement of making the prescribed application and obtaining

the requisite certificate. Indeed, the very incorporation of a

separate procedure for an “existing educational institution” in

Part-II of Notification No. 378 demonstrates that the State

Page 13 of 17

contemplated such existing institutions as being within the

regulatory framework, and not outside it.

20. Equally, the plea of the petitioner that its minority character was

anterior to the Act of 2009 and had allegedly been acknowledged

by the authorities on several occasions cannot, by itself, dispense

with the statutory requirement introduced thereafter. A claim to

the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution and the

consequential entitlement to the special privileges available to a

minority educational institution cannot be equated with a

statutory determination or certification of minority educational

institution status under the mechanism subsequently prescribed

by law. The Supreme Court, while disposing of the petitioner's

challenge on August 4, 2022, expressly left the question open and

granted liberty to the petitioner-school to take appropriate

proceedings in respect of its minority status; pursuant thereto, the

school was required to pursue the procedure contemplated by

Notification No. 378. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot

contend that the procedure prescribed by the Act of 2009 and

Notification No. 378 are not applicable in its case merely because

the institution claimed to have been functioning as a minority

institution from an earlier point of time. Until the statutory

process was undertaken and the requisite status was established

in the manner prescribed, the petitioner could not claim, as of

right, the privileges and exemptions attached to a minority

educational institution. The admitted position that no such

application had been made and no status certificate had been

obtained assumes decisive significance in this regard.

21. Let it be stated here that the appointees that is, the writ

petitioners No.4 to 9 should not be treated as on the same footing

as the school management, because the defect appears to lie in the

school‟s failure to comply with the statutory regime concerning

Page 14 of 17

minority status, whereas the appointees themselves have

undergone a selection process in good faith and may have had no

means of curing that institutional defect. The conclusion with

regard to the obligation of the petitioner-school to comply with the

statutory regime cannot, result in visiting the individual

appointees with the entire consequence of the omission

attributable to the institution or its appointing authority. The

petitioners No. 4 to 9 are not shown to have been responsible

either for the failure of the school to obtain the requisite Minority

Educational Institution Status Certificate or for its decision to

proceed with the recruitment treating itself as a minority

institution. On the contrary, the materials placed before the Court

indicate that the appointments were made pursuant to a

recruitment process undertaken by the school against sanctioned

posts and that the appointees were selected and appointed upon

completion of such process. If, therefore, the recruitment process

is ultimately found incapable of receiving statutory approval solely

because the school failed to comply with the statutory

requirements governing its claim to minority status, the

appointees, who had no role in such non-compliance, ought not

ordinarily to be made to suffer a consequence which they neither

occasioned nor could reasonably have prevented. The distinction

between the legality of the institutional decision to invoke a

particular recruitment regime and the bona fide conduct of an

individual candidate participating in that process is, in this

context, material.

22. The Supreme Court's decision in Uma Devi (3) case [Secretary,

State of Karnataka and Others versus Uma Devi (3) and

others reported at (2006) 4 SCC 1] and also the subsequent

cases, distinguish an illegal appointment from an irregular

appointment. Where the appointment is against a sanctioned post

and the appointee possesses the requisite qualifications, a

Page 15 of 17

procedural defect does not necessarily place the appointee in the

same category as a person whose appointment was fundamentally

prohibited by law for the cumulative reasons of incompetence of

the institution to appoint, non-availability of sanctioned post

and/or qualification deficiency of the particular appointee. In other

words, the school's entitlement to invoke the minority recruitment

mechanism may fail, without necessarily imputing any illegality,

fraud or culpability to the individual appointees. The school

cannot claim minority privileges without satisfying the statutory

mechanism. The appointees cannot automatically obtain approval

under a regime which the school itself was not entitled to invoke.

But the appointees should not be treated as wrongdoers or made

to bear the entire consequence of the school's omission. The Court

can mould relief to preserve their legitimate opportunity ,

particularly when it transpires that the appointees are qualified,

the posts are sanctioned, the selection was bona fide and there is

no allegation of fraud or manipulation in the selection process.

23. Hence, this is a fit case to expressly make equitable exception, on

the basis of particular facts and circumstances of the case.

Therefore, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the present case, and particularly to the fact that the petitioners

No.4 to 9 had participated in the recruitment process in good faith,

that their appointments were made against sanctioned posts

pursuant to a process undertaken by the petitioner-school, and

that there is nothing on record to suggest that the said appointees

had any role whatsoever either in the school‟s failure to obtain the

Minority Educational Institution Status Certificate or in the decision

to proceed with the recruitment by treating the institution as a

minority school, I am of the view that the interest of the said

appointees deserves to be protected as a matter of the peculiar

facts of this case. Accordingly, the 3

rd

respondent/DI is

Page 16 of 17

directed to issue the necessary orders approving the

appointments of the petitioners No. 4 to 9.

24. It is made expressly clear that this direction is being issued as an

isolated measure, confined strictly to the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case, and shall not be treated as a

precedent or as laying down any general proposition for approval

of appointments made by the petitioner-school without compliance

with the statutory requirements. Such approval shall also not, in

any manner, be construed as an acceptance, recognition or

adjudication by this Court of the status of the petitioner-school as

a minority educational institution, nor shall it confer upon the

school any right to claim the privileges or exemptions available to a

minority institution. The petitioner-school shall, in terms of the

liberty granted and the direction issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court by its order dated August 4, 2022, take appropriate

proceedings in accordance with law for obtaining the requisite

Minority Educational Institution Status Certificate from the

competent authority. Until such certificate is duly obtained in

accordance with the prescribed procedure, the petitioner-school

shall not proceed with any further recruitment, including

recruitment against any sanctioned vacant post, by invoking or

relying upon its alleged minority status. Any advertisement already

published for such recruitment and any recruitment process

initiated pursuant thereto shall, forthwith, stand set aside and

shall not be acted upon any further. It is clarified that the present

direction granting approval to the petitioners No.4 to 9 is an

exceptional, one-time relief founded upon the peculiar equities of

the present case and shall not prejudice or dilute the statutory

requirement of obtaining minority status in accordance with law

for any future exercise of recruitment by the petitioner-school.

Page 17 of 17

25. Let the 3

rd

respondent/DI conclude the exercise as directed within

a period of 6 weeks from the date of communication of copy of this

judgment.

26. The present writ petition WPA No. 23416 of 2024 stands disposed

of with the direction as above. Pending application/s if any also

stand/s disposed of.

27. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to

the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

Later:

1. At the time of delivery of judgment Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya,

learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that date of

approval of the petitioner nos. 4 to 9 may be from the date of their

joining respectively. He has also submitted that arrear salary may

be directed to be paid.

2. In view of the judgment earlier delivered by this Court, the prayer

made on behalf of the petitioners appears to be justified.

3. Hence, it is further directed that the respondent no. 3/District

Inspector of Schools (SE), Barrackpore shall approve petitioner

nos. 4 to 9 with effect from the date of their joining respectively.

4. Arrear salary shall be disbursed to the petitioner nos. 4 to 9 within

a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy

of this judgment.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)