JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department (respondent nos. 1 and 3), Mr. R. Dhar, learned standing counsel for the WPT&BC Department (respondent no.2), Mr. A Chaliha, learned standing counsel for the Finance Department (respondent no. 4) and Mr. S. Bora, learned standing counsel for the Bodoland Territorial Council (respondent nos. 5 to 11. Also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam.

2. The petitioners have challenged a series of order dated 05.05.2017, issued by the Director of Education, Bodoland Territorial Council (respondent no. 8), thereby cancelling the appointment of the petitioners and the petitioners have also prayed for directing the respondent authorities for reinstatement of the petitioners in service.

3. In brief, the case of all the 61 (sixty one) petitioners is that after going through the selection process initiated vide notification for advertisement dated 29.07.2002, the petitioners were selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers (AT for short) Lower Primary/ Middle English/ Middle Venture Schools (LP/ME/MV for short) under Baksa District under the administrative control of the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC for short). However, as the respondent authorities did not appoint the petitioners, they had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 8734/2003. This Court by order dated 31.08.2004, disposed of the said W.P.(C) 8734/2003, by directing as follows:-

“ … The subject matter of this writ petition is covered by the order dated 4.11.03, passed in WP(C) 7783/03.

In view of the above, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the directions contained the order dated 4-11-03, aforementioned making it clear that the respondent authorities shall not appoint any person outside the relevant select list and, as and when appointment is made from the select list, the appointment shall be made strictly in order of merit subject to reservation policy.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. No order as to cost.”

4. It is projected by the petitioners that the authorities of the BTC and Elementary Education Department were corresponding with each other and within their Department for grant of approval, financial approval and appointment of the petitioners as ATs. Thereafter, vide letter no. BTC/Edn(El)180/ 2005/241 dated 27.07.2016, issued by the Secretary, BTC informed the Director of Education, BTC (respondent no. 8), the receipt of approval from the Finance (SIU) Department bearing no. FSI.56/2016 dated 26.02.2016 towards filling up of 67 (sixty-seven) vacant sanctioned post of AT of LP/ME/MV Schools under BTC out of 74 (seventy-four) numbers of selected candidates in compliance of High Court’s order dated 31.08.2004, passed in W.P. (C) 8734/2003 and the sanction and retention of post clarified by the Director of Education, BTC (respondent no. 8) vide letter no. DE/BTC/Apptt.-238/2013/2016/119 dated 28.06.2016, and the respondent no. 8 was directed to take steps for appointment to the petitioners. It is projected by the petitioners that consequently, 61 appointment orders dated 03.08.2016 (pg. 99 to 159 of writ petition) were issued by the Director of Education, BTC (respondent no. 8) and it is further projected that all the petitioners had joined their respective posts of AT in the concerned schools. However, some of the aggrieved persons had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 6093/2016 and this Court by order dated 05.10.2016, stayed the appointment orders of the petitioners. The respondent no.8 had issued notice to the petitioners to show-cause as to why their respective appointment orders should not be cancelled, which was responded to by the petitioners. Thereafter, the authorities of the Director of Education, BTC (respondent no. 8),