(1.) Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearing for the State Respondents. The facts of this case as summed up by this Court in its judgment dated 5.6.08 passed in WP(C) No. 7242/2002 and WP(C) No. 7243/2002 are that in the month of January, 1996, 50 posts of graduate teachers in High/Higher Secondary Schools of the State of Assam were created for being filled up by candidates belong in to the Tea Garden and Ex-Tea Garden categories. Out of the posts so created specified numbers were allotted to different districts and were required to be filled up by the end of February, 1996 as the same carried retention only upto the end of the financial year of 1995-96. Apparently to meet such a situation, a direction was issued to the Inspector of Schools of the different districts to appoint candidates of the above-named categories on ad hoc basis subject to their selection later by the District Level Selection Board. In this way, 37 posts were filled up on ad hoc basis in the above manner leaving 13 posts vacant. Thereafter selections were held and the select list of 18 named candidates including the four petitioners herein so prepared was published on 7.12.99. However, the appointments from the said select list were not forthcoming as there was ban on appointment with effect from 6.12.99. The said ban could only be lifted with the approval of the then State Level Empowered Committee (hereinafter referred to as SLEC) now SIU (Finance). In fact, by the W.T. message dated 25.3.2001 the ban came to be lifted for certain categories of posts. However, the same did not cover the posts in question. Notwithstanding the above, the then Director of Secondary Education issued the communication dated 29.3.2001 to the Inspector of Schools for filling up the vacant posts in question in terms of the aforesaid W.T. message dated 25.3.2001. As appointments were not forthcoming, those writ petitions were filed by the writ petitioners including the petitioners herein seeking appropriate directions.
(2.) This Court by the judgment and order dated 05.06.2008 had observed that the ban on appointments imposed with effect from 6.12.1999 could be lifted only with the approval of the SLEC [now SUI (Finance)] and that such approval presupposed a proposal by the concerned Department for lifting of the ban, in the absence of such proposal made before the SLEC, there was no occasion for it to consider whether the ban should be lifted. According to this Court, the very fact that the bans were lifted by the SLEC in respect of other posts was suggestive of the fact that the SLEC was open to lift the ban on genuine cases. Therefore, concluded the Court, in the absence of requisite action taken by the Department in this behalf, the failure to give effect to the selections so made could be held to be justified. An observation was made by this Court that persons not selected had been appointed and subsequently regularized, whereas the writ petitioners including the petitioners herein who were selected candidates were without any appointment and that in such circumstances, the Court was of the view that a direction for appointment of the petitioners against the four posts in question should be made by the Court.
(3.) The learned departmental counsel, had then submitted that neither the original select list containing 18 names including those of the petitioners nor the proceedings of the selection process were available and that only a copy of the select list signed by the three persons who possibly acted as the members of the said Selection Board was available. The learned departmental counsel, therefore, submitted therein that before giving appointments to the petitioners, the State should be granted the liberty to verify from the aforesaid persons the relevant facts surrounding the selection. On the basis of the said submission, this Court had disposed of the writ petitions by observing that appointments of the petitioners would be made only after verification of the facts and circumstances surrounding the selection process, if required, by duly examining the aforesaid three persons whose signatures appeared in the photocopy of the select list. If, on such verification of the selection process, held this Court, the select list was found to have been validly prepared, appointments would be conferred upon the petitioners against four of the remaining 13 posts which must still be available The Court thus concluded such appointments would be made after completion of all formalities including obtaining the approval of SIU (Finance) and retention for the posts, if such retention was required.