ABANI BARUAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S Borthakur learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 being the authorities under the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam and Mr. A Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 being the authorities under the Finance Department, Government of Assam.

(2.) The petitioners claim that they had participated in a selection process for the posts of Assistant Teacher in ME/MV Schools in the State of Assam pursuant to an advertisement dtd. 3/9/1991 which was published in a local daily 'The Sentinel'. The petitioners were subjected to an interview process by the Sub- Divisional Level Advisory Board (for short, the Board) and under the Rules prevailing at the relevant point of time, the Board was the appropriate authority for undertaking the interview. It is stated that pursuant thereof a select list was published and the petitioners were appointed in the manner as indicated in the tabular form in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, which is extracted as below:

(3.) The petitioners had received their salary and allowances from the date of initial appointment up to the year 1995 and, thereafter, they were not paid. During the same period, certain irregularities in the appointments were detected in the Education Department and it was a situation where the Department was unable to determine as to which of the appointments were illegal, irregular or regular. In view of the above and also under certain other circumstances, an enquiry committee was constituted headed by Sri S Manoharan, IAS, which in common parlance is called the 'Manoharan Committee'. The cases of the writ petitioners were also subjected to a scrutiny by the Manoharan Committee. It is stated that the Manoharan Committee had categorized the appointments of the teachers who were subjected to the scrutiny into three categories. The first category being such teachers whose entry into services were accepted to be illegal, the second category being such teachers whose entry into services were considered to be irregular and the third category being such teachers whose entry into services were considered to be legitimate. It is also stated that in respect of the second category of teachers whose entry into services were considered to be irregular, two cabinet decisions were taken being dtd. 21/2/2000 and 24/2/2005. In the first cabinet decision of 21/2/2000, a decision was taken to regularly induct into services 3511 number of teachers. Accordingly such teachers were regularly inducted into service and are getting their service benefits as entitled. But as the number of teachers who were categorized to be irregularly appointed were more than 3511, the second cabinet decision was taken on 24/2/2005 to induct a further 2776 numbers of teachers. The present writ petitioners are included in the second cabinet decision wherein a decision was taken to induct on regular basis 2776 numbers of teachers. Accordingly, by the order dtd. 22/8/2005 of the Director of Elementary Education Assam, the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. the date of their joining against the vacant posts as per the list enclosed thereto in the scale of pay of Rs.3130.00 to 6600/- per month plus other allowances as admissible under the Rules.