(1.) Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, representing the two review petitioners. Also heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for all the 25 respondents.
(2.) The respondents herein are the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) 5032/2007, by which the respondents had prayed, amongst others, for a direction upon the authorities for payment of salary for the period the respondents had rendered their service. By judgment and order dtd. 16/6/2016, this Court had allowed the writ petition by directing as follows:
(3.) The learned standing counsel for the petitioners has referred to the statement made in this review petition and has submitted that the case of the respondents was that (i) following advertisement of 1991 and select list dtd. 22/6/1992, (ii) following advertisement of 1995 and select list dtd. 18/8/1995, and (iii) select list dtd. 24/4/1998, they were appointed as Assistant Teachers (ATs for short) in various Lower Primary Schools in Karimganj District pursuant to selection made by the Sub- Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education, Karimganj. They were paid monthly salary till January, 1997 and thereafter, their salaries were stopped. Resultantly, the respondents had filed W.P. (C) Nos. 5277/2003, 5363/2003, and 5276/2003. The said writ petitions were disposed of by order dtd. 18/7/2003, by directing the State authorities to examine their claim and that if on examination, the respondents were found to be legally entitled to arrear pay and allowance, which had been held up since February, 1997, the same was directed to be released. Direction was also issued to the State to consider the case of the respondents to adjust their service against non-plan vacant post in accordance with law. The authorities had submitted a proposal in Finance (SIU) format to the Education Department for regularisation of the service of the respondents. The Government examined the proposal and the same was rejected by order dtd. 17/8/2007 on the ground that as per the report dtd. 4/9/2003 by the Inspector of Schools, the respondents were appointed in non-existent/ nonsanctioned posts and as the appointment was illegal/ irregular, there was no scope for adjusting the service of the respondents against non-plan posts since they were appointed illegally.