The court emphasized the importance of considering the regularization of service in line with the policy decision and the directions issued in Writ Appeal No. 182/2013.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department, for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent nos. 2 to 7.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 19.11.2009 and prayed for a direction to the respondent authority to consider for reinstatement in the post of Assistant Teacher as per the policy decision taken by the BTC, in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 06.02.2015 passed in W.A. No. 182/2013 (Gobinda Barman and Others vs. State of Assam and Others)

3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Bagrikhuti Milan M.E. School on 04.12.1999 by the District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari. Thereafter, the post of Assistant Teacher was converted from plan post to Non-plan vide order dated 27.03.2001.

4. While the petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 19.11.2009, the service of the petitioner was terminated due to non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions, which are as follows:

(A) Advertisement issued by the DEEO, 19.1. of Schools of Nalbari inviting application as a candidates to fill-up the posts in the schools.

(B) Approval of State Level Empowered Committee of the personal department of Govt. of Assam to fill-up the posts.

(C) The records of holding interview and preparation of score sheets by the interview Board.

(D) List of Selected Candidates indicating vacancies of the schools to fill-up the selected candidates.

(E) Approval of EBAC for the appointment.

5. It is contended that many persons similarly situated with the petitioner were also terminated on the same grounds.

6. On being aggrieved of the said termination orders many similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing various writ petitions. The said batch of writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge, vide common judgment and order dated 21.03.2013. Thereafter, the matter was taken to appeal by way of writ appeal being W.A. No. 182/2013. During the course of hearing of the writ appeal, the respondent/BTC has placed the policy decision taken by respondent authorities and the judicial notice was taken by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

7. On consideration of the issue, the Hon’ble Division Bench has passed the following order vide dated 16.02.2015, which is reproduced herein-below:

“It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants (herein) were receiving salaries up to 17.10.2006 and thereafter the termination was effected. The BTC and as well the government of Assam took a decision to regularise all those teachers who are in service and are regularly receiving salaries up to 17.10.2006. In the first phase of the exercise, it is submitted that 221 teachers have been found to be eligible for regularisation as per the above norm.

It is the contention of the appellants that the appellants are also similarly placed and they should also receive the similar treatment at law.

The counsel appearing for the BTC submits that the policy decision is taken that the persons receiving regularly salaries from the month of March, 2006 would be regularised and the implementation of the policy is in process. The government of Assam has also agreed to the said policy.

In view of the above submission the writ appeals are disposed of with direction to respondents to effect regularisation as per the policy decision of all those eligible teachers who were regularly receiving salaries up to 17.10.2006.

Needless to say, if any of the appellants is aggrieved in the decision-making with regard to the tenure of their service rendered and receipt of salaries they can approach this Court by separate petitions.”

8. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court as the case of the petitioner, who is also similarly situated with the writ appellants in the said writ appeal was not considered and left out, by filing