JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) :

Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, the learned counsel representing the petitioners in both the cases. The Department of Elementary of the Assam Government is represented by Mr. N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel. The BTC and their officers are represented by Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, the learned standing counsel.

2. The common challenge in both the cases is to the order dated 31.12.2011 of the BTC authorities, whereby the regularization claim of the 29 left out teachers was rejected on the ground that the life span of the select list, valid for one year has lapsed. The focus of the challenge is that 355 similarly appointed were regularized by the same authority and there is no difference in the way the two categories entered service.

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although 28 litigants who had originally filed the WP(C) No.429/2012, the petitioner Nos.6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27 & 28 have withdrawn themselves under the order dated 10.2.2015, in the Misc. Case No.189/2015 and therefore that case is pressed forward on behalf of the remaining 16 petitioners.

4. The petitioners contend that they were appointed on 12.3.2001, in different LP Schools in Chirang District and are continuing their service till date. The BTC authorities have regularized the services of 355 similarly appointed LP school teachers and therefore the left out group of 29 have also applied for regularization. But that claim was rejected by the BTC authorities on the ground that, the select list has already lapsed, after expiry of one year. Therefore the claim made by the 29 left out category cannot be considered.

5. According to the petitioners, they were selected and appointed against available vacancies and therefore, can be categorized as irregular appointees. Hence they are entitled to regularization of service. Since the regularization for the larger group of 355 appointees was allowed by the BTC authorities, as per the decision made on 17.3.2005, similar relief for the excluded group of 29 teachers is claimed. They contend that the State is obliged to ensure parity in regularization.

6. As the select list was already acted upon and the petitioners were appointed, the lapse of the select list after one year, cannot be a valid ground for rejecting the claim for regularization and accordingly Mr. Y.S. Mannan, the learned counsel submits that since it is not a claim for fresh appointment on the basis of the so called lapsed select list, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

7. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, the learned standing counsel for the BTC submits that the decision of regularize 355 teachers was a policy decision and therefore the Court should be slow to enter into the policy making domain of the State.

8. The counsel further submits that since the claim for salary, advanced by few of the segregated petitioners of the WP(C) No.429/2012, was rejected by the High Court on 4.1.2012 in the WP(C) 5277/2010 (Rukiya Khatun vs. State of Assam) (Annexure-I) and WP(C) 3598/2010 (Md. Saiful Haque vs. State of Assam), the challenge to the impugned order of 31.12.2011 (Annexure-14), is not maintainable.

9. The appointment of around 384 (355+29) teachers were given in the year 2001, by the Bodoland Autonomous Council (BAC) authorities and out of this group, when the BTC was constituted in place of the BAC, decision was taken to regularize the service of 355 appointees, as can be seen from the communication dated 17.3.2005 (Annexure-3), of the Secretary of the BTC. But 29 similarly appointed teachers, were left out of the process of regularization. The basis for shortlisting of the 355 from the left out group of 29, is not discernable from the available materials. But the entry into service by the entire lot of 384 persons in the year 2001, is through a common mode.

10. Therefore the left out group of 29 had applied for parity of benefit with those 355, whose service was regularized. But their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document