Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010203682024 2026:GAU-AS:13453 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5039/2024 ANIL CH GAYAN AND 3 ORS S/O- ADAN GAYAN, R/O VILLAGE - HILOIPARA, P.O.- KACHARIPATHAR, DISTRICT - DHEMAJI, ASSAM. (WORKING AS GRADE-IV EMPLOYEE IN BATGHARIA H.S. SCHOOL) 2: DWEIPEN BARUA S/O- LATE MALIRAM BARUA R/O VILLAGE - BONGALGAON P.O.- DERGAON DISTRICT - GOLAGHAT ASSAM. (WORKING AS GRADE-IV EMPLOYEE IN DERGAON GIRLS H.S. SCHOOL) 3: HABIBUR RAHMAN S/O-LATE SAJAT ALL R/O VILLAGE - AHAM GAON P.O.- TUKTUKI DISTRICT - NAGAON ASSAM. (WORKING AS GRADE-IV EMPLOYEE IN BATABARI UC DEKA JUM BIDYALAYA) 4: LABANYA GOGOI W/O- JITUL CHETIA R/O VILLAGE - GELIKI CHARIALI P.O.- GELEKI DISTRICT - SIVSAGAR ASSAM. (WORKING AS GRADE-IV EMPLOYEE IN CHAKIMUKH HIGHER Page No.# 2/13 SECONDARY SCHOOL VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (SECONDARY), DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006. 2:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION SECONDARY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DHEMAJI ASSAM 5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS GOLAGHAT ASSAM 6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NAGAON ASSAM 7:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SIVASAGAR ASSAM 8:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 0 Page No.# 3/13 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, MS S A KHALIFA,L KIKON Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE, SC, SEC. EDU. Linked Case : WP(C)/4114/2024 HIRANYA DAS AND ANR SON OF LATE GOPI RAM DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUB-SALMARA UNDER P.O. PHULAGURI IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON ASSAM (WORKING AS LDA IN SALMARA HIGH SCHOOL NAGAON ASSAM) 2: SMTI. PUNYA PRAVA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SRI SISHURAM NATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBHAGIA P.O. CHARAIBAHI PS- MIKIRBHETA IN THE DISTRICT MORIGAON ASSAM (WORKING AS LDA AT CHARABAHI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL MORIGAON ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 ASSAM 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NAGAON ASSAM 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS MORIGAON ASSAM Page No.# 4/13 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 6:THE HEADMASTER SALMARA HIGH SCHOOL NAGAON ASSAM 7:THE PRINCIPAL CHARABAHI H.S. SCHOOL MORIGAON ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MRS. K DEVI Advocate for : SC SEC. EDU. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS Linked Case : WP(C)/5051/2024 JITEN GOHAIN S/O LATE MOKHESWAR GOHAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BOGINADI MAJGAON PO BOGINADI DIST LAKHIMPUR ASSAM WORKING AS GRADE IV EMPLOYEE IN KADAM H.S SCHOOL VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006. 2:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION SECONDARY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM Page No.# 5/13 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 ------------ Advocate for : MRS. K DEVI Advocate for : SC FINANCE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 10-09-2026 Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 5039/2024 and W.P.(C) No. 5051/2024 and Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 4114/2024. 2. The issue involved in the above noted three writ petitions being similar and emanating from the same facts, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, have projected that they were appointed as Gr-IV employees on temporary basis, in different High Schools/ Higher Secondary Schools by the Director, Secondary Education, Assam, during the years 1993- 95. The appointments effected in respect of the petitioners, is contended to have been effected against sanctioned vacant posts. The petitioners continued with their services Page No.# 6/13 and they being not considered for regularization of their services, they had approached this Court by way of instituting writ petitions, one of which was W.P.(C) No. 2921/2015. This Court vide judgment and order dated 30-09-2015, proceeded to dispose of the said W.P.(C) No. 2921/2015 and other analogous matters, directing for consideration of the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services against Gr-IV posts, within the timeframe so mentioned in the order. 3.1. Being aggrieved by the directions passed by this Court vide the judgment and order dated 30-09-2015, the State respondents had instituted review petitions, in each of the writ petitions involved, praying for recall of the judgment of order dated 30-09-2015. This Court considered the review petition and on a due consideration, vide judgment and order dated 09-08-2022, the review petitions were disposed of by requiring the petitioners in the writ petitions to submit individual representations before the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Secondary Education Department, stating in details, their respective dates of appointment, name of the institutions, wherein, they were appointed, the procedure adopted for such appointment and the post to which the appointments were made as well as the creation number of the posts if available. On receipt of such representations, the Secretary, was directed to verify the number of sanctioned posts available in the schools, wherein, the petitioners were appointed and also to find out, whether on the date the appointments were made in respect of the petitioners, sanctioned vacant posts, for the purpose were available. Accordingly, basing on the said determination, directions were issued to consider the cases of the petitioner further. 3.2. The petitioners project that in terms of the liberty granted by this Court, vide the Page No.# 7/13 judgment and order dated 09-08-2022, passed in the review petitions, the petitioners, submitted their respective representations in the matter. Thereafter, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of School Education, vide an order dated 01-06-2024, proceeded to dispose of the representations, preferred by the petitioners, by holding that there was no material to establish that the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts and rejected their claim for regularization of their servcies. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, have submitted that the departmental authorities have not complied with the directions passed by this Court, vide judgment and order dated 09-08-2022, in Review Petition No. 52/2022 and other analogous matters, more particularly, the directions as contained, therein, in paragraphs 18 and 19. It is projected that the conclusions drawn by the Secretary in the speaking order dated 01-06-2024, to the effect that the appointment of the petitioners were not effected against sanctioned vacant posts, is clearly perverse, inasmuch as, the orders of appointment of the petitioners would go to reveal that they were so appointed against vacant sanctioned posts. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the order dated 01-06-2024, would mandate interference from this Court, with a further direction to the respondent authorities to carry out the verification process in respect of the initial appointment of the petitioners strictly, in accordance with the directions contained in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment and order dated 09-08-2022 passed in Review Petition No. 52/2022 and other analogous matters. Page No.# 8/13 5. Ms. D. Musahary, learned counsel for the respondents, after taking this Court through the speaking order dated 01-06-2024, has submitted that the petitioners were not appointed by following the due procedure mandated for the matter. She, however, fairly submits that in pursuance to a subsequent verification carried out by the respondent authorities, the petitioners in the above noted three writ petitions, were found to have been initially appointed against sanctioned vacant posts. However, she submits that even if the said position is to be noted and the petitioners held to have been appointed against sanctioned vacant posts, the appointment of the petitioners not being preceeded by a process of selection, as mandated under the rules holding the field, their such appointments cannot be given any credence and the petitioners would not be entitled to have their services regularized. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 7. The facts leading to the institution of W.P.(C) No. 2921/2015, and other analogous matters, by the petitioners, herein, is not disputed by the respondents and accordingly, the same is not reiterated. As noticed, hereinabove, the services of the petitioners not being regularized, they had approached this Court by way of instituting several writ petitions, one of which is W.P.(C) No. 2921/2015. The said writ petitions, were given a final consideration and vide judgment and order dated 30-09-2015, the writ petitions came to be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners involved in the writ petitions, therein, against Gr-IV posts in High Schools/ Higher Secondary Schools in the district, wherein, the petitioners were found to Page No.# 9/13 be so working. 8. The State respondents, being aggrieved, had instituted review petitions against the judgment and order dated 30-09-2015, in each of the writ petitions involved, one of such review petition instituted was Review Petition No. 52/2022. This Court vide judgment and order dated 09-08-2022, gave a final consideration to the review petitions, including the Review Petition No. 52/2022 and on consideration of the issues arising in the matter had passed the following directions:- “15. The question as to whether an employee is appointed against a sanctioned vacant post is always a question of fact. An employee can be said to have been appointed against a sanctioned vacant post, if at the time of the appointment vacant sanctioned posts were available in that particular organization where the concerned employees were appointed. A conclusion as to whether an employee was appointed against sanctioned vacant post would be a person specific conclusion as to whether the particular employee was appointed against a sanctioned vacant post and it cannot be a question of a general proposition in a joint writ petition filed by several persons that they were in fact appointed against sanctioned vacant posts. 16. Considering the limited grievance raised in this batch of review petitions, we are inclined to allow the review petitions to the limited extent that there is a requirement under the law to arrive at an individual factual satisfaction as to whether a given writ petitioner was appointed against sanctioned vacant post, which again would depend solely on the facts and circumstances of each individual appointment. Otherwise, as regards the general proposition accepted in the judgments under review dated 30.09.2015 in WP(C) No. 2921/2021 and other writ petitions and 22.02.201 in WP(C) No. 7485/2015, we are agreeing with such proposition that if the three aforementioned conditions are satisfied and the petitioners concerned continued in service beyond the period of ten year as on 21.04.2016 without the aid of an interim order of any Court, such petitioners would be entitled to a consideration for regularization as a onetime measure as per the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of Uma Devi (3)(supra). 17. But to have the benefit of the aforesaid proposition, there also have to be an individual factual conclusion to be arrived that the person concerned amongst others, was appointed against a sanctioned vacant post. 18. In the circumstance, we require the individual writ petitioners to make Page No.# 10/13 an application before the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department stating in detail the dates of appointment, the names of the institutions where they were appointed, the procedure adopted for such appointments, the posts to which the appointments were made as well as the post creation number, if available. Upon the individual applications being submitted, the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department shall call for the individual records from the respective schools where the writ petitioners were appointed. From the records, the Secretary shall verify as to what was the number of sanctioned posts in respect of the posts where the individual petitioners were appointed and also to find out as to whether on the day when the appointments were made, any of the sanctioned posts, if available, were vacant. 19. If the answer is in the affirmative, it has to be understood that irrespective of the manner of appointment of the writ petitioners, they were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts. If the conclusion arrived at would be contrary that no sanctioned vacant posts were available on the day the appointments were made, the conclusion may be arrived at that the persons concerned were not appointed against any sanctioned vacant post. If the conclusion arrived at is that the persons concerned were appointed against the sanctioned vacant posts, the provisions of the two judgments dated 30.09.2015 in WP(C) No. 2921/2015 and other writ petitions and 22.02.2017 in WP(C) No.7485/2015 requiring their regularization as a onetime measure would be applicable and also be complied with. 20. In respect of those writ petitioners where the conclusion arrived is that they were not appointed against the sanctioned vacant posts, it would be for the authorities in the Secondary Education Department to take any appropriate decision against them as may be available under the law.” 9. A perusal of the direction passed by this Court would go to reveal that this Court, basing on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioners, i.e. the State respondents, had arrived at a conclusion that there was a requirement to ascertain as to whether each of the petitioners involved in the connected writ petitions, were appointed against a sanctioned vacant post. Accordingly, the petitioners in the writ petitions were directed to submit individual representations along with the details as provided in the said order. The Secretary of the Department was, thereafter, directed to examine as to whether the petitioners involved were appointed against sanctioned vacant Page No.# 11/13 posts. Such consideration was directed to be made ignoring the manner in which the writ petitioners in the connected writ petitions, were appointed. It was further provided that if the conclusions arrived at, is to the effect that the persons concerned were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts, the directions passed in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2921/2015 and analogous matters, for regularisation of the services of the petitioners as a one-time measure, would be applicable and also complied with. The steps to be taken if the petitioners are found to be not appointed against sanctioned vacant posts, was also provided. 10. As noticed, hereinabove, in pursuance to the submission of representations by the petitioners in terms of the liberty granted to them, by this Court, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, School Education, on a consideration of the same proceeded vide order dated 01-06-2024, to reject the same by holding that the appointment of the petitioners were not found to be so effected by following the due procedure of law and that no material had come on record to establish that the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts. Accordingly, the claim made by each of the petitioners were came to be rejected. 11. As noticed, hereinabove, the learned State counsel had placed on record, reports of verification carried out subsequently by the departmental authorities, wherein, it was found that the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, were initially appointed against duly sanctioned vacant posts. The said material coming on record, the conclusions drawn by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of School Education, in the order dated 01-06-2024, is to be held to be perverse. Further, this Court vide judgment Page No.# 12/13 and order dated 09-08-2022 in Review Petition No. 52/2022 and other analogous matters, having restrained the respondent authorities from examining the manner in which the petitioners were appointed, this Court finds that the Secretary, in proceeding, vide the order dated 01-06-2024, to examine the manner in which the petitioners were appointed had exceeded his jurisdiction in the matter. Accordingly, the order dated 01-06-2024, impugned in the above noted writ petitions, stands set aside. 12. Having interfered with the order dated 01-06-2024, the matters stand remanded back to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of School Education, for a fresh exercise to be carried out for compliance of the directions passed by this Court vide the judgment and order dated 09-08-2022 in Review Petition No. 52/2022 and other analogous matters. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of School Education, while undertaking the said exercise, in terms of the directions passed, hereinabove, shall take into consideration the verification reports submitted by the learned standing counsel before this Court today. The learned standing counsel, Education Department shall furnish a copy of the said report to the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. The petitioners shall submit individual representations and enclose, therein, the said verification report, along with a certified copy of this order before the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, School Education, for compliance of the directions passed, hereinabove. The Secretary on receipt of the said representation, shall initiate the process of such consideration and conclude the same with issuance of an order, as would be called for in the matter, in the light of the directions passed, hereinabove, within a period Page No.# 13/13 of 60 (sixty) days, from the date of receipt of the representation from each of the petitioners, herein. 14. The verification report furnished by the learned standing counsel, Secondary Education, Assam, are kept on record, marked as ‘X’, ‘X1’ and ‘X2’, respectively for the purpose of identification. 15. With the above observations and directions, the above noted writ petitions, stand disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant