An interim order restraining regularization of illegally appointed teachers does not apply to those already regularized; conditions imposed under unequal bargaining power denying past benefits are void and unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

Heard Ms. I. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 and also heard Mr. P.K. Bora, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, two petitioners, namely, Debdut Nath and Nadul Chandra Dey, have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to adjust/re-adjust the services of the petitioners against the existing vacant posts as shown and proposed in the proposal submitted in SIU(Finance) format vide Annexure-10A by granting necessary approval from the Finance Department, Govt. of Assam without any break of their services by clarifying/holding that the order of restrainment dated 19.01.2009 passed in WP(C) No.5569/2002 and batch, vide Annexure-12, is not binding/applicable in case of the petitioners whose services were regularized way back in the year 2006 vide order dated 30.01.2006 and also direct the respondent authorities to pay the petitioners their arrear salary w.e.f. June, 1994 till the date and onward current salary regularly and further to grant other service benefits which the petitioners are legally entitled to and also for quashing and setting aside the condition attached to the impugned order dated 30.01.2021 to the effect that the petitioner would get prospective effect from 01.11.2020 only and that he cannot claim any benefit whatsoever in respect of his first service rendered by him prior to 01.11.2020.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-

“The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher in M.E. School against newly created posts in the time scale of pay vide individual appointment orders dated 28.02.1994, issued by the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Bongaigaon, as per approval of the Advisory Board and on the basis of their performance in the selection process and they used to work as Assistant Teachers since their date of joining till date, continuously. Initially, they have received salary for a period of 3 months i.e. upto May, 1994. But suddenly the salary of all the teachers including the petitioners, who were appointed against the posts created by the Government vide order dated 16.11.1991, were stopped on the ground that their appointments were found to be illegal as per the Monoharan Committee Report. However, their services were not terminated and they continued to be served without any salary. Thereafter, a Cabinet decision was taken in its meeting held on 24.02.2005 to regularize the services of those teachers who were illegally and irregularly appointed as per the Monoharan Committee Report after screening by the Task Force/District Level Screening Committee, in phase manner and as per the said Cabinet decision and after screening by the Departmental Screening Committee/Task Force, the services of 125 nos. of teachers including the petitioners were regularized with effect from their respective date of joining against the vacant posts as per the list enclosed therein in the scale of pay of Rs.3130- 6060/- p.m. plus other admissible allowances, vide order dated 30.01.2006 of the respondent No.3. The name of the petitioner No.1 appeared at Sl.No.36 and his service was proposed to be adjusted at Vivekananda Vidyapeeth M.E. School vide one Ranjit Chakraborty, Assistant Teacher (Retd.) and the name of the petitioner No.2 appeared at Sl.No.79 and his service was proposed to be adjusted at New Bongaigaon M.E. School vide one Gouranga Das, Assistant Teacher (Retd.). Accordingly, both the petitioners joined their new place of posting on 15.02.2006 and 10.02.2006, respectively and the same was informed by the respective Headmaster to the DEEO, Bongaigaon. But the respondent authorities did not pay any response and then the petitioners have filed one application under the Right to Information Act and in response to the same, vide letter dated 22.07.2008 the Director of