Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010224992018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7741/2018 SHALIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O- LATE FOIZUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA, VILL- BAHADURPUR PART-II, P.O- HAILAKANDI, P.S- HAILAKANDI, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788155 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPTT (ELEMENTARY), DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 19 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151 5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS HAILAKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151 Page No.# 2/4 6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER LALA DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 7:THE TREASURY OFFICER HAILAKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M MAZUMDER, MRS S B CHOUDHURY,MR. A M BARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 28.01.2025 1. Heard Mrs. S.B.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N.Phukan, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department. 2. The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.10.2005, issued by the Director, Elementary Education Department, Assam by which the petitioner’s service had been terminated. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was appointed on the suggestion of the Minister, Irrigation Department, Government of Assam and the petitioner was never appointed on the basis of any selection process as an LD Assistant. The same is reflected in the order dated 01.04.2005 passed in WP (C) No. 5787/1999. This Court in the order dated 01.04.2005 passed in WP (C) No. 5787/1999 dismissed the prayer for regularisation made by the petitioner therein. Consequent to the order dated 01.04.2005, the petitioner’s service was terminated by the Director, Elementary Education vide order dated 26.10.2005. 4. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court vide WP(C) No. 2578/2016 seeking quashing of the order dated 26.10.2005, terminating the service of the petitioner. This Court, vide order dated 20.01.2017 dismissed WP(C) 2578/2016 with cost of Rs.5,000/-. The operative portion of the order dated 20.01.2017 Page No.# 3/4 passed in WP(C) 2578/2016 is reproduced herein as below: “As noticed above, petitioner had not only manipulated his entry into Government service but there has also been distortion of the Court’s order to confer illegal gain upon the petitioner. For all the aforesaid reasons, Court is of the view that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. There is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Interim order passed earlier shall stand vacated.” 5. The petitioner put to challenge the order dated 20.01.2017 passed in WP(C) 2578/2016 in appeal, vide WA /40/2017. WA No.40/2017 was dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2017, by the Division Bench of this Court by holding as follows: “6. What emerges from the above discussion is that the writ petitioner was the beneficiary of an illegal process as he secured entry into govt. service on a verbal order, without selection or through due process. This was the reason for the termination decision of the writ petitioner by the DEE, Assam, under the impugned order dated 26.10.2005. The refusal by the writ court under the circumstances to interfere with the termination order cannot therefore be faulted. Therefore finding the Writ Appeal to be devoid of merit, we dismiss the same. No cost.” 6. The petitioner thereafter filed an SLP No.14796/2017 before the Supreme Court against the dismissal of his case in WP(C) No. 2578/2016 and WA No.40/2017. SLP No.14796/2017 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 09.05.2017, as follows: “ We find no reason to entertain this special leave petition which is, Page No.# 4/4 accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be paid wages for the period he actually worked and there shall be no recovery. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 7. The petitioner has by way of this present petition, again made a challenge to the termination order dated 26.10.2005 which cannot be allowed, in view of the fact that there has been a finality to the validity of the termination order dated 26.10.2005, by the decision of the Single Bench, which has been upheld by the Division Bench and Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is no specific prayer made in the writ petition for payment of salary for the work done by the petitioner. 8. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to allow the writ petition. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant