JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. Heard Mr. R. P. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. N. Sarma, learnedStanding Counselfor the respondents in Elementary Education Department. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to regularize her service as Lower Primary School Teacher and also, to release the arrear monthly and current salariesof the petitioner, who has been serving as Assistant Teacher, under the respondent authorities. Background facts :- 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under - “Pursuant to an advertisement, issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioner had applied for a post of Assistant Teacher, under the jurisdiction of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Karimganj, now Sribhumi, and she had appeared before the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board, for Elementary EducationTeacher, Karimganj and she was selected and approved by the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board for Elementary Education, Karimganjfor appointment in Primary School, as Primary Teacher and she was appointed and posted at No. 499,DuhaliaLower Primary School, temporarily, as StipendiaryTeacher, with monthlystipend @Rs. 900 only, vide Memo No. DIK/99/2000/A-8/1241-48, dated 20.11.1999. Thereafter, she was appointed against a permanent vacant post, by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Karimganj, on 28.03.2001, vide Letter No. DIK/2000-2001/A-8/1506-569, and she has been posted at No. 394 Nilmoni L.P. School, in a regular vacant post and she had joined there on 30.03.2001, and since then she has been rendering her service in the said school. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Karimganj, had issued a direction on 28.03.2001, to the Headmaster of the concerned School, directing to prepare ‘Kachabill’, with a view to forwarding the same to the concerned Block Elementary Education Officer/Deputy Inspector of Schools, for drawal of her salary and accordingly, the same was forwarded by the Headmaster, after preparation for drawal of the salary. But, no action was taken upon the same. She has not been paid any salary. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed one writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1103/2011, and the same was disposed of on 15.12.2011; directing the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, to examine her claim. She has not been paid any salary. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed one writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1103/2011, and the same was disposed of on 15.12.2011; directing the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, to examine her claim. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted all relevant documents before the authority and the same were examined by the Commissioner, Education Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6,and vide order, dated 18.07.2013;the prayer of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that her name does not appear in the select list of 112 Nos. of candidates, dated 27/10/1999. It is the case of the petitioner that she had obtained the select lists, dated 27/10/1999 and 13/11/1999, through R.T.I. and found that her name appeared in the select list, dated 27/10/1999, at Serial No. 112; and that, the Order, dated 18.07.2013, was issued without due application of mind and the same is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside and quashed. And, it is also the case of the petitioner that she has not been paid salary, for which, she has been suffering from serious financial hardship. Thereafter, vide letter, dated 11.05.2001, from the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, the salaries of 105 candidates were released, but the petitionerwas deprived of the same. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed one application before the competent authority under the RTI Act, and the competent authority had issued a list of employees, whose nameshad been sent to the Treasury Officer for salary and the name of the petitioner also appeared in the said list. But, the name of the petitioner was not sent to the Treasury Officer, Karimganj as she had filed another writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1103/2011. Her name was also deleted for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 against No. 394 Nilmoni LP School and instead, the name of one Smti. Sabita Das was shown, who had retired from service on 31.12.1997. Her name was also deleted for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 against No. 394 Nilmoni LP School and instead, the name of one Smti. Sabita Das was shown, who had retired from service on 31.12.1997. Thereafter, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) department, Guwahati, issued an order on 19.08.2009, directing the Director, Elementary Education, Assam to appoint 111 persons selected by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board, Karimganj, on 27/10/1999,and the same was issued incompliance with the order, dated 24/03/2008, passed in Writ Appeal No. 86/2008; and accordingly, the list of selected persons, dated 27/10/1999,were appointed.But, the petitioner was singled out and was also not paid any salary. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred another writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5094/2013, which was disposed of vide order,dated 12.03.2020, holding that the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits including arrears and current salary, if the select list dated 27.10.1999 is valid and if the name of the petitioner is found to be included in the said select list after verification. But, nothing was done. The Director, Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, had also issued a letter, dated 21.09.2020, to the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Education Department, Guwahati; but the same also failed to yield any result. Thereafter, the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, had accommodated the petitioner at 394 Nilmoni L.P. School under District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj, vide order dated 30.01.2021; on temporary basis, w.e.f. 01.11.2020; and that she has not been granted the arrear salary by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam.” 4. Thereafter, the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, had accommodated the petitioner at 394 Nilmoni L.P. School under District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj, vide order dated 30.01.2021; on temporary basis, w.e.f. 01.11.2020; and that she has not been granted the arrear salary by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam.” 4. The respondent authoritieshave filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, a stand has been taken that as reported by the District Elementary Education Officer, (DEEO), Karimganj, vide letter dated 01.06.2023, the advertisement was issued, but the petitioner was not selected and pursuant to the order passedby this Court on 15.12.2013, in WP(C) No. 1103/2011,the case of the petitioner was placed before the Expert Committee for consideration of her claim for payment of salary and after verifying all her records, the Expert Committee had issued an order, dated 18.07.2013, stating that the name of petitioner did not appear in the proper select list, dated27.10.1999, which was approved by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board, Karimganj; and that the petitioner has obtained the select list from one ShyamalDutta, who is not the official authority and oneFIR has been filed by the Deputy Director of School, Karimganj,against said ShaymalDutta,for fraud and forgery. 4.1 It has been further stated that though, the name of the petitioner figured in the list dated 13.11.1999, the sameis not a valid original documents. So, the appointment of the petitioner is found to be illegal, as her name was not enlisted in the valid select list and as per Government order, dated 18.07.2013, the petitioner is not entitled to arrears salary, as claimed. 4.2. And, this Court, vide order dated 12.03.2020, passed in WP(C) No.5094/2013;had directed the authorities to re-examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the select list produced by thepetitioner and to conduct another verification, as to ascertain whether the name of the petitioner finds place in the select list, dated 27.10.1999, with further direction that if the name of the petitioner is found to be included in the said select list, the petitioner would be entitled to be declared as validly appointed teacher and she shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits including arrear and current salary. 4.3. Thereafter, verification was conducted, during which, it was found that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the valid select list, dated 27.10.1999, and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit. 5. 4.3. Thereafter, verification was conducted, during which, it was found that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the valid select list, dated 27.10.1999, and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit. 5. The petitioner has filed heraffidavit-in-reply in response to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, wherein, she had denied all the statements and averments made by the respondent No. 2 in the affidavit-in- opposition. 6. It is also to be noted here that the respondent No. 2 has filed one additional affidavit on 15.05.2025, bringing on record the Select List, dated 27.10.1999, as per direction of this Court, dated 07.04.2025. 7. The petitioner has also filed one additional affidavit on 01.09.2025, wherein, she has stated that she was duly selected and regularly appointed to the post of L.P. School teacher, w.e.f., 20.11.1999. 8. Mr. R. P. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein had applied for the post of teacher and participated in the selection process and she was selected by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board, Karimganj,and her name figured in the list of selected candidates dated 27/10/1999. And thereafter she was appointed as teacher was appointed and posted at No. 499, Duhalia Lower Primary School, temporarily, as Stipendiary Teacher. He also submits that as per Annexure 2,the Order, dated 28.03.2001, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Karimganj, has forwarded the name of the petitioner, which figured at Serial No. 13, directing the Head teachers to prepare a Kacha bill for onward submission of the same to the Block Elementary Education Officer, for drawal of salary. 8.1 Referring to the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5094/2013, dated 12.03.2020, Mr. Sarma submits that this Court has observed that “the petitioner was able to show a list stated to be the select listdated 27.10.1999, supported by affidavit that her name indeed appears at Sl.No.35 of the said list. Thus, from the above, what is clearly evident is that the finding by the Committee that the select list dated 27.10.1999, does not include the name of the petitioner and the production of the list by the petitioner in this petition, in which the name of the petitioner is included in the select list, dated 27.10.1999, is within the realm of ascertainment of facts.”Mr. Sharma also submits that thereafter, to ascertain the correctness of either of the claims, the respondent authorities were directed by this court to re-examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the select list produced by the petitioner and to make another verification, as to whether the name of the petitioner finds place in the select list dated 27.10.1999. Mr. Sharma further submits that it has also been observedby this court that the select list, dated 27.10.1999, is valid and if the name of the petitioner is found to be included in the said select list as claimed by the petitioner, on the strength of the document relied upon in this petition or any other document as may be available,the petitioner would be entitled to be declared as a validly appointed teacher and she would also be entitled to all the consequential benefits. Mr. Sarma also submits that thereafter, the respondent authorities had conducted the verification and illegally declared that the claim of the petitioner as invalid. 8.2. Mr. Sarma also submits that the petitioner has been rendering her service since the date of her appointment, but no salary was paid to her until her accommodation, w.e.f. 01.11.2020, vide order, dated 30.01.2021; and that, vide said order, she has been accommodated as Tutor, under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017; with prospective effect only. 8.3. Mr. Sarma also submits that the petitioner has been rendering her service since the date of her appointment, but no salary was paid to her until her accommodation, w.e.f. 01.11.2020, vide order, dated 30.01.2021; and that, vide said order, she has been accommodated as Tutor, under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017; with prospective effect only. 8.4. He also submits that, the petitioner was appointed under the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974 and the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977, and the same are still holding the field, and at that time, the qualification for being appointed as Lower Primary School teacher was only matriculation and the requirement of DLED as qualification, was introduced in the year 2005, and the same was not there in the Rules of 1977, as such her accommodation as Tutor subsequently by the respondent authority is illegal. 8.5. Under the abovementioned facts and circumstances, Mr. 8.5. Under the abovementioned facts and circumstances, Mr. Sarma submits that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized in service, with effect from the date of her appointment and also, she is entitled to arrear monthly salary and therefore, he has contended to allow this petition. 9. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in Elementary Education Department submits that the select list dated 27.10.1999is annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities, as ‘Annexure I’, but the name of the petitioner did not figure in the same; and that the petitioner has already been accommodated as a Tutor and the said accommodation order has not been challenged by the petitioner herein. 9.1 Mr. Sarma further submits that the petitioner herein also lacks the educational qualification for being appointed as Teacher, for which, she has been appointed as Tutor, and having accepted the same, now, she cannot turn around and claim for herarrear salary and regularization of service.Under such circumstances, Mr. Sarma has contended to dismiss this petition. 10. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 5094/2013, dated 12.03.2020. 11. It appears that in the Order, dated 12.03.2020, passed in WP(C) No. 5094/2013; this Court has recorded a categorical finding as under:- “ 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-7, which is stated to be select list dated 27.10.1999, which was also referred to by the Committee and reflected in the impugned order dated 18.07.2013. In the said select list produced by the petitioner, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-7, the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl.No.35 under Interview No.UR 1538 and the petitioner has been recommended against the vacancy which was earlier held by one Sandhya Rani Dey, 991(A), NobinVidyapith. The said select list is signed by one Deputy Inspector of Schools, Karimganj and stated to be verified by the Superintendent, Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam. ……………………… …………………………. 7. The said select list is signed by one Deputy Inspector of Schools, Karimganj and stated to be verified by the Superintendent, Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam. ……………………… …………………………. 7. Thus, from the above, what is seen is that while the authorities have given the finding as reflected in the impugned order dated 18.07.2013 that the petitioner's name does not figure in the valid select list dated 27.10.1999, the petitioner has been able to show a list stated to be the select list dated 27.10.1999 supported by affidavit that her name indeed appears at Sl.No.35 of the said list. Thus, from the above, what is clearly evident is that the finding by the Committee that the select list dated 27.10.1999 does include the name of the petitioner and the production of the list by the petitioner in this petition, in which the name of the petitioner is included in the select list dated 27.10.1999 is within the realm of ascertainment of facts. As such, this Court for obvious reasons cannot undertake the exercise correctness of either of the claims. However, since the petitioner has been to ascertain able to show certain document supported by affidavit, this Court would direct the respondent authorities to re-examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the select list produced by the petitioner in this petition and make another verification as to whether the name of the petitioner finds place in the select list dated 27.10.1999. 8. It goes without saying that since there is already a finding by the authorities that the select list dated 27.10.1999 is valid and if the name of the petitioner is found to be included in the said select list as claimed by the petitioner on the strength of the document relied upon in this petition or any other document as may be available, the petitioner would be entitled to be declared as a validly appointed teacher and she shall be also entitled to all the consequential benefits including arrear and current salary, for which the respondent authorities will undertake a fresh verification process as directed above and inform the result of the same to the petitioner by issuing a speaking order in this regard, which exercise shall be undertaken within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 11.1. Thus, it appears that there is a finding by the authorities that the Select List, dated 27.10.1999, is valid one. The only question is whether the said list is valid one or not. Said select list was earlier produced before this Court in earlier writ proceeding W.P.(C) No. 5094/2013, as Annexure 7, and in the present proceeding as Annexure-5. The name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 35 of the said list, under Interview No.UR 1538 and the petitioner has been recommended against the vacancy which was earlier held by one Sandhya Rani Dey, 991(A), NobinVidyapith. The said select list is signed by one Deputy Inspector of Schools, Karimganj and stated to be verified by the Superintendent, Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam. 11.2. Further, from Annexure 2, of the present petition, which is the Order, dated 28.03.2001, of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Karimganj, indicates that vide said order the name of the petitioner, which figured at Serial No. 13, the Head teachers of the Schools were directed to prepare a Kacha bill for onward submission of the same to the Block Elementary Education Officer, for drawal of salary. 11.3. Further, from the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 01.09.2025 indicates that she had filed an application dated 20-10-2014, before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam (Education) Elementary, Dispur, Guwahati praying for information documents of illegally/irregular teachers from 1991 to 2009 of L.P. Schools in Karimganj district and the authority has provided information/documents of teachers who were appointed irregularly/illegally during the period from 1991 to 2001, in L.P. Schools District Karimganj, and the said list is annexed as Annexure- 19, and her name did not figure in the said list, and as such her selection and appointment is legal and she is entitled to get regular salary. Notably, the respondent authorities have not controverted the same by filing any counter affidavit. 12. Notably, the respondent authorities have not controverted the same by filing any counter affidavit. 12. Thus, Annexure 2, Annexure-5and coupled with the fact that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of illegally appointed teachers from 1991 to 2001, in L.P. Schools District Karimganj, in view Annexure- 19, of the present petition, couple with the submissions advanced by R.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, goes a long way to show selection and appointment of the petitioner is legal and she is entitled to get regular salary.Over and above, subsequent accommodation of the petitioner as Tutor vide order dated 30.01.2021, also fortified her stand to a considerable extent. 13. Though, on the basis of the ‘Annexure-I’, at page No.68 in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent authorities, and also Mr. P.N. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, haveclaimed that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the same; yet, Mr. P. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in Elementary Education Department has failed to produce the original copy of the same, inspite of asking by this court, on the ground that the file is not available now with the department. In absence of the concerned file, to support their stand and the statements and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition and the ‘Annexure-I’, enclosed with the said affidavit-in-opposition, to the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be accepted. 14 . It is a fact that the petitioner was appointed vide order, dated 20.11.1999, and at that time, the Act of 1974 and the Rules of 1977 were prevailing and under the said Act and Rules, the qualification for being appointed as a Lower Primary School Teacher was Matriculation and the qualification of DLED was introduced only in the year 2005, and as such, the accommodation of the petitioner as Tutor, for want of qualification, also appears to be unjustified. But, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered under the Act of 1974 and the Rules of 1977; which, Mr. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out during the course of argument and he has also made a categorical submission that the said Act and Rules have not yet been repealed, either by the Act of 2011 or by the Act of2017. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out during the course of argument and he has also made a categorical submission that the said Act and Rules have not yet been repealed, either by the Act of 2011 or by the Act of2017. But, indisputably, the accommodation orderdated 30.01.2021, is not the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 15. Another aspect of the matter, which should not lose sight of is the fact that the petitioner has been rendering service since the year 1999 and she has not been paid her salary till her accommodation as Tutor, vide order, dated 30.01.2021.It is well settled that the state respondent cannot extract service of the employees without paying salary. In this regard reference may be made to s decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 , held that right to salary is a right recognized under Article 300(A) and 21 of the Constitution of India and right to property is a human right also. 15.1. The issue of extraction of service without payment of salary, was dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SukhdeoPandey vs. Union of India, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 455 , wherein it has been held that it is well-settled principle in service jurisprudence that a person must be paid if he has worked and should not be paid if he has not. The relevant para is extracted herein below:- “ 17. Before parting with the matter, however, we may make one thing clear. From the record, it appears that after the appellant was reverted from the cadre of Postman to his substantive post of EDBPM , he has not joined duty and has not worked. No interim relief was granted by any court including this Court in his favour. In the circumstances, it was obligatory on him to report for duty as EDBPM . He, however, failed to do so. We, therefore, hold that if the appellant has not worked, he will not be paid salary for the period for which he has not worked. It is well-settled principle in service jurisprudence that a person must be paid if he has worked and should not be paid if he has not. He, however, failed to do so. We, therefore, hold that if the appellant has not worked, he will not be paid salary for the period for which he has not worked. It is well-settled principle in service jurisprudence that a person must be paid if he has worked and should not be paid if he has not. In other words, the doctrine of “no work, no pay” is based on justice, equity and good conscience and in absence of valid reasons to the contrary, it should be applied. In the present case, though the appellant ought to have joined as EDBPM , he did not do so. He, therefore, in our considered opinion, cannot claim salary for that period. But he will now be allowed to work as Postman. He will also be paid salary as Postman but we also hold that since the action of the respondent authorities in reverting him to his substantive post of EDBPM was strictly in consonance with law, the appellant would be entitled to pensionary and other benefits not as Postman but as EDBPM which post he was holding substantively.” 15.2. Again, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of ArunimaChetia (supra), answered the same as under:- “ 9. Upon hearing the rival contentions and after going through the order of the learned single Judge in question, it is an admitted fact that all the respondents in the appeals are continuously working as teacher and their salaries are being paid by virtue of the Court's order. Arrears of salary from July 2007 are not being paid. When the respondents are continuously serving as teacher, the question whether they are illegally appointed or otherwise it matter-less. However, for the services rendered by the private respondents and availed by the State, on the principle of "quantum meruit" the salaries have to be paid. In that view of the matter we find no ground to interfere in the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed.” 15.3. Thus, on the principle of "quantum meruit" the petitioner is entitled to salary for the past service rendered by her from the date of her appointment on 20.11.1999, till her accommodation 01.11.2020. 15.4. In that view of the matter we find no ground to interfere in the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed.” 15.3. Thus, on the principle of "quantum meruit" the petitioner is entitled to salary for the past service rendered by her from the date of her appointment on 20.11.1999, till her accommodation 01.11.2020. 15.4. Further, in the case of Man Singh vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary & Ors., reported in 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 341, also Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “ The Single Judge in its order dated 11.05.2000 maintained the order dated 24.12.1998 of cancellation of appointment of the appellant as Principal on account of violation of Chapter 3 Rule 4 of U.P. Educational Manual prescribes that a close relation mentioned in said Rule cannot be appointed as Principal. The appellant was appointed as a principal in the year 1974-75 when junior High School was upgraded as High School and was recognized by the State Government. Thus, the appellant has worked for almost 24 years before the services came to be cancelled for the reason that he is Reason: relative of the member of the Selection Committee. The order dated 24.12.1998 also records that the money be recovered from the appellant which has been paid to him, as a result of his irregular appointment for the post of Principal. We find that the High Court has failed to consider the fact that even if the appointment was irregular, the appellant had discharged the duties and in lieu of duties, he had to be paid. The State cannot take any work from any employee without payment of any salary.” 16. Under the abovementioned facts and circumstances on record, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. 17. By a mandamus of this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from the date of her appointment and also to pay her the salary, and all consequential benefits which she is legally entitled to. 18. Let the abovementioned exercise be carried out within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of 1 (one) week from today. 19. 18. Let the abovementioned exercise be carried out within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of 1 (one) week from today. 19. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.