MC 1624/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants. Submission is also heard from Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the O.P./writ pet itioners. Mr. M. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel appears for the official re spondents. It is contended by the applicants that as per the latest policy of the G overnment, Government grant is sanctioned for making payment to the deserving te achers and staff and the past practice of giving a consolidated amount to the ve nture schools, to be shared by all the engaged staff have since been discontinue d. Mr. A.S. Choudhury however refers to the Government policy prevalent dur ing 2005-2006 to show that the earlier system was to grant a consolidated amount to give relief to the educational institutions to solve their ways and means pr oblems and the said amount was not given to individual teachers and staff of the school and he submits that the earlier system should be the basis for the new p olicy. However according to the current guideline notified on 12.1.2011, it is apparent that specific amounts have been earmarked for teaching and non-teaching staff and how many of the existing staff in a venture school will receive the G overnment grant depends on the students strength and the number of sections, in the concerned school. Therefore, it is apparent that even if the 3rd teachers in the venture s chools are to be given a share of the Government grant, same will not came out o f the money already sanctioned for the first and second teachers and additional funds will have to be made available for the 3rd teacher by the Government, in t he event a favourable verdict is given, in favour of the 3rd teacher in the vent ure schools. In the above facts, I see enough justification to recall the ex parte in terim order dated 6.4.2011 and the same is accordingly vacated. The Misc. case s tands allowed accordingly.