Suppression of material facts by a party invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution can lead to the imposition of costs and dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Senior Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

2. The petitioners counsel submits that the petitioner No. 3 would not like to pursue the matter, as per instructions received by him from the petitioner No. 3. As such, the petitioner No. 3 may be deleted as a party from this case.

3. The prayer of the petitioners counsel is allowed. The petitioner No. 3 is accordingly deleted as a party from the case.

4. The petitioners prayer is for setting aside the order dated 11.01.2005 and order dated 24.09.2010, which is to the effect that the petitioners are illegal appointees, who have been appointed against non-existent posts. The further prayer of the petitioner is that a direction should be issued to the State respondents to release the current salary and arrear salary of the petitioners.

5. The petitioners counsel submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were appointed as LDA-cum-Typist in the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Dalgaon ICDS Project against sanctioned vacant posts on 11.11.1998. However, as they were not being given their salary, the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 7517/2003. In WP(C) No. 7517/2003, an order dated 16.09.2003 was issued directing the State respondents to dispose of the petitioners appeal dated 12.08.2003 and to make payment of the arrear salary of the petitioners as well as current salary. Subsequent to the order dated 16.09.2003 passed in WP(C) No. 7517/2003, the petitioners were given their arrear and current salary. However, as the petitioners were not being given their salary from June, 2007, the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 1564/2010. This Court, vide order dated 09.04.2010 disposed of WP(C) No. 1564/2010, with a direction to the State respondents and particularly to the Director of Social Welfare, Assam to examine the grievances of the petitioners and do the needful in accordance with law. Subsequent to the above order dated 09.04.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 1564/2010, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam passed the impugned order dated 24.09.2010, which was to the effect that the service of the petitioners had been declared to be void vide order dated 11.01.2005 and as such, they did not have any right to continue in their service since issuance of the said order dated 11.01.2005. Hence, the prayer for payment of arrear/current salary was rejected.

6. The petitioners counsel submits that the impugned order dated 24.09.2010 had been issued in pursuant to the impugned order dated 11.01.2005, which was to the effect that the petitioners appointments were illegal, as they had been appointed against non-existent posts. He thus prays that the impugned orders dated 11.01.2005 and 24.09.2010 should be set aside, as the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts.

7. Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Senior Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that the petitioners do not have any right to claim arrear or current salary, as their initial appointments were illegal and as it had been made in excess of vacancies i.e., they were appointed against non-existent posts. He has also submitted 2 letters dated 15.09.2021, issued by the respondent Nos. 4 & 6, which states that the petitioner No. 1 has been absent from office from 28.02.2009, while the petitioner No. 2 has been absent from 06.04.2018. He submits that as the petitioners, who were working without pay, are no longer working as indicated above, the present writ petition should be dismissed.

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. As per the submission made by the petitioners counsel, the issue to be decided is basically a disputed question of fact, i.e., whether the appointments of the petitioners had been made against regular sanctioned posts or had been made against non-existent posts. While the appointment orders of the petitioners, as reflected in the writ petition, shows that they had been appointed on 11.11