Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010023132025 2025:GAU-AS:1608 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/781/2025 MD ABDUL MANNAN S/O- LATE MAFIZUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILL- BAGHARBARI, P.O.- JANGALPARA, DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE DISTRICT PROJECT COORDINATOR D.P.E.P. DARRANG MANGALDOI. 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS UDALGURI DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A R BHUYAN, MR N Z CHOUDHURY,MR S ABDULLAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 17.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.R.Bhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the respondents should be directed to rectify/modify the impugned order dated 15.11.2011, issued in favour of the petitioner, appointing him as an Assistant Teacher in lower primary school on temporary basis in the Pay Band-2 (PB-2) Rs.5,200-20,200+ Grade Pay per month. The petitioner’s further prayer is to regularize his service from his initial date of appointment i.e. on 25.01.1996. 2. Mr. P.K.Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, on the other hand, submits that not only does the petitioner not have any right to have his service regularized prior to the impugned order dated 15.11.2011, but the writ petition should also be dismissed, as the same is hit by laches and delay. He submits that the impugned order dated 15.11.2011, by which the petitioner has been appointed on regular basis for the first time as an Assistant Teacher, has been challenged after more than 13 years. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 4. The facts of the case shows that the petitioner had been appointed as a substitute teacher, vide order dated 25.01.1996, in place of Md. Wajuddin Page No.# 3/5 Ahmed in Bagharbari L.P.School at a fixed pay of Rs.900/- per month, till the return of the original teacher who had gone for training. Thus, the above order dated 25.01.1996 clearly shows that the petitioner had not been appointed against any vacant post. He was only appointed against the post to which Md. Wajuddin Ahmed had been appointed on a temporary basis. 5. The petitioner had also earlier approached this Court, vide WP (C) No. 646/2007, stating that the petitioner had joined as a L.P.School teacher of Bagharbari L.P.School vide the order dated 21.12.1995, against the deputation vacancy of one Md. Wajuddin Ahmed and that the petitioner had been continuing to serve as a L.P.School teacher since then. As other L.P.School teachers who were similarly situated with the petitioner had only been adjusted against a substantive vacancy, the case of the petitioner should be considered for adjusting him in a vacant post of L.P.School teacher. The stand of the petitioner in WP ( C) No.646/2007 also shows that the post against which the petitioner was appointed was on a temporary basis, as the said post was the substantive post of Md. Wajuddin Ahmed, who had gone on deputation. 6. This court, vide order dated 09.02.2007, disposed of the WP (C) No.646/2007, by directing the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 23.12.2006 for adjusting him against a vacant post of L.P.school teacher. 7. As the order dated 09.02.2007 passed in WP (C) No.646/2007 was not Page No.# 4/5 being acted upon, the petitioner filed Contempt Case (C ) No. 237/2010. During the pendency of Contempt Case (C) No. 237/2010, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department issued order dated 01.06.2011, directing the Director, Elementary Education, Assam to submit a proposal to the Government of Assam, Finance (SIU) Department, for approval, to adjust the petition in a sanctioned post. 8. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department wrote a letter dated 20.07.2011 to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, stating that the Governor of Assam was pleased to convey the approval for filling up one vacant post of L.P.School teacher under the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Mangaldai by way of regularization of the service of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Director, Elementary Education Department issued the impugned order dated 15.11.2011 appointing the petitioner to the regular post of Assistant Teacher in Lower Primary School. 9. As can been seen from the facts narrated above, the petitioner has no right to claim regularization of his service from 25.01.1996, inasmuch, as the petitioner was not appointed against a vacant post. His appointment order dated 25.01.1996 shows that he was only a substitute teacher till the regular teacher returned from his training. 10. In the present case, the petitioner had been appointed on a regular basis for the first time by the impugned order dated 15.11.2011. No challenge had been made to the said impugned order dated 15.11.2011, except by way of this Page No.# 5/5 writ petition, which has been filed only on 05.02.2025. The challenge is only limited to making a modification of the same. This Court is of the view that as the petitioner has only made a prayer to modify the impugned order dated 15.11.2011, after more than 13 years, the present writ petition is hit by delay and laches. This Court is accordingly not inclined to exercise its discretion in this case, especially when the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. There is also nothing to show that any enforceable right of the petitioner has been violated, by the issuance of the impugned order dated 15.11.2011. In fact, the impugned order has been issued on the basis of the order dated 09.02.2007 passed in WP (C) No. 646/2007, wherein the petitioner’s representation was only required to be considered. This Court is thus of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant