WP(C) 319/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B. SAHA By this petition, the petitioners two in numbers, working in a private school na mely- Dhorarghat V.L.P. School prayed for a direction to the respondents to incl ude the name of the petitioner in the list of teacher of Dhorarghat V.L.P. Schoo l for provincialisation of the school along with the teacher being one of the fo under teacher of the school. Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing fo r the respondent Nos.1,2 and 3. As agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also t aking note of the nature of prayer made in the writ petition, the instant writ p etition is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage even in absence of th e respondent No.4. The brief facts is as follows - The petitioner No.1 entered into service on 11.6.1985 as 2nd teacher and the petitioner No.2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 17.9.1991 in Part-I D hararghat L.P. School by the Secretary of the School Managing Committee. Thereaf ter, though the particulars of other teachers were shown in the proforma form by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri, but the name of the petition ers were not included in the said proforma. Hence the writ petition. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the persons were appointed later on the petitioners, their name has been shown in the proforma form by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri ignoring the case of the petitioners. Therefore, the whole action of the authori ty is arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department while countering int o submissions, submits that there is no cause of action for the petitioners for filing the instant writ petition as the name of the petitioners were not sent by the Headmaster of the School to the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhub ri, the respondent No.4 did not get the opportunity to include the name of the p etitioners more so, the instant writ petition can be straightway disposed of wit h a simple direction to the respondent No.3 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 6.5.2010 (Annexure-IV) to the writ petition and with a furt her direction to the respondent No.4 to dispose of the letter of the Secretary o f the School dated 7.4.2010 (Annexure-III) to the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon going to the r ecords, this Court is of the opinion that it would be justice if the sub mission of Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department is accepted by th is Court. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a di rection to the respondent No.4, Headmaster of the School to dispose of the lette r of Secretary of the School dated 11.6.1985 (Annexure-I) to the writ petition w ithin a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of this order and the r espondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner da ted 6.5.2010 (Annexure-IV) to the writ petition within a period of two (2) month s from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.. The petitioners are directed to furnish a copy of the order of this Cour t along with the copy of the annexure as stated above to the respective authorit y within a period of ten (10) days from today. With the aforesaid order, the instant writ petition is disposed of.