PRANOY KANTI DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department.

(2.) By means of this writ petition filed by the Petitioners numbering 94, it has been prayed that the Respondents be directed to pay salary to the Petitioners stated to be payable from 2001. At the very outset, Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that some of the writ Petitioners had the occasion to approach this Court by filing WP (C) No. 6930/2001 making the same prayer. The said writ petition was disposed of by the following order:

(3.) From the above order, what is seen is that the Petitioners involved in the said writ petition were entitled to receive salary only if they were duly appointed by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of law and otherwise not. In State of Manipur v. Y. Token Singh, 2007 5 SCC 65and State of A.P. v. K. Brahmanandam, 2008 5 SCC 241, the Apex Court has held that if the candidates are appointed de hors the Recruitment Rules, mere continuance in service will not entitle the incumbents to receive salary.