Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010155472022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5108/2022 SATYENDRA DAS S/O LT. GHANASHYAM DAS, VILL. AND P.O.- ATHIABARI, DIST.- BAKSA(BTAD), ASSAM, PIN- 781377. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT.,GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTC KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM PIN- 783370. 3:THE SECRETARY EDUCATION BTC KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM PIN- 783370. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370. 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER Page No.# 2/5 BAKSA MUSHALPUR BTAD ASSAM PIN- 781372. 6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BAKSA MUSHALPUR BTAD ASSAM PIN- 781372. 7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J PATOWARY, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, BTC,SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 21.01.2025 Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, BTC and Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department. 2. The petitioner's case is that in terms of the order dated 11.09.2015 passed in the WP(C) No.5496/2015, the respondent authorities were to affect regularization of the petitioner's services as Assistant Teacher, subject to a verification to be carried out by the BTC authorities, as to whether the petitioner had been receiving salary up to 17.10.2006. The said order dated the 11.09.2015 was passed in consonance with the order dated 06.02.2015 passed Page No.# 3/5 by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.182/2013. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the said directions passed by this Court, the BTC authorities verified the service records of the petitioner and found that he was drawing salary upto 19.01.2009, as reflected in the letter No. BTC/Edn (EL)-170/2015/HC/ 254 dated 20.01.2025 issued by the Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar. The above said letter dated 20.01.2025 issued by the Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure ‘X’. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent No.4, it has been admitted that the petitioner had been receiving salary till December, 2008. He further submits that the policy decision taken by the BTC authority for regularization of the services of those teachers, who were regularly receiving salary up to 17.10.2006 having been fulfilled, the BTC authorities have to regularize the services of the petitioner. 5. Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing counsel, BTC submits that the service of the petitioner could not be regularized earlier against the 1009 numbers of Finance (SIU) approved sanction vacant posts, as the petitioner had not appeared before the Verification Committee. However, as the petitioner had been receiving Salary up to 19.01.2009, the petitioner's service would be regularized as soon as Finance (SIU) approved sanctioned vacant post is available, in terms of the letter dated 20.01.2025 issued by the Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The last three paragraphs of the order dated 06.02.2015 passed in WA No. 182/2013 is reproduced herein as follows:- Page No.# 4/5 “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. The paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 11.09.2015 passed in WP(C)/5496/2015 is reproduced herein as follows:- “3. The learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, however, submits that the State respondents were not involved making such a policy decision: the decision by the BTC authority for regularization of the services of those teachers who were regularly receiving salaries up to 17.10.2006 is not binding upon them. In my opinion, the submission of the learned standing counsel is noted only to be summarily rejected inasmuch as the observation of the Division Bench is binding upon this Court. This Court cannot deviate from or given a go by to the decision of the appellate Court. 4. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.4 to effect regularization of the service of the petitioner as per the said policy decision subject only to verification by the BTC authority as to whether he had been receiving salary regularly up to 17.10.2006. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondent authorities within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. The affidavit submitted by the State respondents and the submission made Page No.# 5/5 by the learned counsel for the BTC clearly shows that the petitioner’s service would have to be regularized, inasmuch as, he has been found to have been given salary beyond the year 2006. 10. This Court has also noticed that an interim order dated 08.08.2022 has been passed by this Court, which has attained finality as on date and no stand has been taken by the State respondents that the interim order passed on 08.08.2022 was not implemented. The interim order dated 08.08.2022 directs the State respondents that one post of LP School Assistant Teacher in the BTC area should not be filled up. 11. On considering the fact that the condition precedent for regularizing the service of the petitioner as an Assistant teacher has been fulfilled and admitted by the State respondents, in terms of the directions passed by the Division Bench and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the State respondents would have to regularize the service of the petitioner, even if it requires taking the ex-post facto Finance (SIU) approval for the same. 12. It is also noticed that there is no averment made by the State respondents that all the created sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers of L.P. Schools in the State of Assam and the BTC area have been filled up as on date. 13. The regularization of the petitioner’s service should accordingly be done within a period of 1 (one) month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant