Petitioner granted writ for service approval from 1.1.87, emphasizing judicial authority and res judicata.

The court allowed the writ application, directing the respondents to approve the petitioner's service from 1.1.87 and release all arrear salaries and benefits. The court emphasized the binding nature of its judgments on administrative authorities and the principle of res judicata, ensuring the petitioner's rights were upheld as per the finalized judgment of Mahitosh Majumdar, J.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Approval of appointment as organizing teacher from 1.1.87.
2. Compliance with the judgment of Mahitosh Majumdar, J.
3. Validity of the decision by the Director of School Education, West Bengal.
4. Constructive res judicata and contempt of court by administrative authorities.
5. Directions for approval and release of arrear salaries and benefits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Approval of Appointment as Organizing Teacher from 1.1.87:
The petitioner challenged the decision dated 1.7.96 by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Uttar Dinajpur, which denied her approval as an organizing teacher from 1.1.87, instead approving from 1.4.91. The petitioner argued that she was entitled to approval from the date of the school's recognition (1.1.87) as per the circular dated 20.12.84 issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal.

2. Compliance with the Judgment of Mahitosh Majumdar, J.:
The initial writ application (C.O. No. 3908(W) of 1991) was disposed of by Mahitosh Majumdar, J. on 5.4.91, directing the Director of School Education to grant approval to the petitioner as done for other organizing teachers. Despite this, the Director approved the appointment from 1.4.91, citing compassionate grounds and superseding circulars. This decision was contrary to the judgment of Mahitosh Majumdar, J., which had reached finality and was binding.

3. Validity of the Decision by the Director of School Education, West Bengal:
The Director's decision to approve the appointment from 1.4.91 was based on superseding circulars and compassionate grounds, which was not in line with the court's directive. The court held that the Director had no jurisdiction to override the judgment and that the decision was a contempt of court.

4. Constructive Res Judicata and Contempt of Court by Administrative Authorities:
The court emphasized that the judgment of Mahitosh Majumdar, J., which reached finality, was binding on all administrative bodies within the state. The Director's decision to apply a superseding circular was contrary to the judgment and constituted contempt. The principle of constructive res judicata was applicable, binding the state respondents to the final judgment.

5. Directions for Approval and Release of Arrear Salaries and Benefits:
The court directed the respondents to accord approval of the petitioner's service from 1.1.87 and to release all arrear salaries, allowances, and service benefits from that date. This direction was given irrespective of the availability of a post, mandating the creation of a supernumerary post if necessary. The court expressed displeasure over the non-compliance by the Director and District Inspector of Schools and emphasized the need for adherence to judicial decisions.

Conclusion:
The writ application was allowed, directing the respondents to approve the petitioner's service from 1.1.87 and to release all arrear salaries and benefits within specified timelines. The court underscored the binding nature of its judgments on administrative authorities and the principle of res judicata, ensuring the petitioner's rights were upheld as per the finalized judgment of Mahitosh Majumdar, J.

---