The court emphasized the need for a detailed enquiry into the appointment of the petitioners and highlighted the importance of compliance with rules for salary release and eligibility determination.

ORDER :

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order/letter dated 3.12.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby claim of the petitioners for approval of their appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and grant of salary in aided school has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that respondent No.5 - is a society registered on 24.3.1954 in the name and style of Chirmiri Colliery Vidhayalaya Samiti, Chirmiri and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, hence the Act and Rules framed by the State are applicable to it. The petitioners were engaged as Teacher in January, 1996, however, the order of appointment was issued by respondent No.5 on 1.10.1996 vide Annexure P/3. Thereafter, the case of the petitioners was forwarded to the competent authorities for its approval i.e. Deputy Director, Education, Baikunthpur, Korea and after due examination, their appointment was approved. Since the petitioners were not being paid salary, they made representations to the in-charge Minister, however, no action was taken by the authorities on it. Hence the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. WP No.2646/2003 for direction to the respondents to consider and decide their representation and give all service benefits from the date of their confirmation on the post. The said petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.6.2008 (Annexure P/12) and subsequently, the petitioners’ representation was dismissed on 3.12.2010 holding that appointment of the petitioners was not confirmed and their appointment could not have been made on the post of Assistant Teacher. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

“10.1 This the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the case of the petitioners including the dispatch register of year 1999 from office of Respondent No.4.

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari and quash the impugned order/letter dated 03.12.2010 passed by Respondent No.2 (Dy. Director).

10.3 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ and direct the respondent No.1 to 4 to treat the petitioners as Assistant Teacher from their initial appointment and release all consequential benefits as admissible to other teachers of the Respondent No.5 institution along with arrears with interest @ 9%.

10.4 Any other relief which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned passed by respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and without application of mind and contrary to the documents available on record. Before passing the impugned order, the respondent authorities ought to have considered that the petitioners have been working since January, 1996, though the appointment order was issued on 1.10.1996 and admittedly, the posts were vacant in the school of respondent No.5. There is no allegation of forged or fabricated appointment or that the petitioners were not having requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher. Their appointment order was issued by the competent authority. The respondents have also not considered the letter dated 14.5.1999 (Annexure P/5) issued by Deputy Director but recorded the statement of PS Rathia who had nothing to do with this matter because he is working as Principal whereas the appointment of the petitioners was approved by the Deputy Director (Education) and copies were forwarded to the higher authorities which is entered in the dispatch register and therefore, the letter dated 14.5.1999 cannot be doubted.

He further argued that even as per amended provisions the petitioners are entitled for salary of Shikshakarmis. The respondents are taking contradictory stands as on the one hand, they are saying that the petitioners are worki