SMT. ANIMA RAY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Khan, the learned counsel for the eight petitioners. The respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 are represented by Mr. A. Deka, the learned standing counsel for the Department of Elementary Education. The learned standing counsel for the Finance Department Mr. P. Nayak, appears for the respondent No.2.

(2.) The petitioners were appointed as graduate science teachers in M.E. Schools of Bongaigaon District, under the BEEO's appointment order(s) dated 28.1994 (Annexure-1 series). The appointment order(s) reflect that the appointments were made against newly created posts in middle schools. The services of the appointees were regularized on 1.3.2001 (Annexure-3 series) and the regularized groups were adjusted by the DEEO on 20.3.2003 (Annexure-7 series). The issue here is whether the regularized teachers are entitled to their arrear salary between Aug., 2000-19.3.2003, as they were paid their arrears only w.e.f. 20.3.2003.

(3.) In Assam, during 1994-96, large number of illegal appointments of teachers were made in different schools. When the matter came to light and salaries to the appointees could not be disbursed, the Government in the Cabinet meeting on 21.2.2000, had decided to verify whether the appointments were made through a legal process, against existing vacancies. The S. Monohoran Committee was then constituted, which categorized the petitioners as selected but irregularly appointed, against non-sanctioned posts. Accordingly decision was taken by the Cabinet to regularize the service of this group and to disburse their salary w.e.f. Aug., 2000. For the other group, categorized as illegal because they were appointed without selection against non-existent posts by the Monohoran Committee, the Government decided to terminate the service of the illegal appointees.