Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010125232025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./53/2026 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2: THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 3: THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KAMRUP DISTRICT CIRCLE DIST. KAMRUP (M) PANBAZAR GUWAHATI 78100 VERSUS 1.ARJU ALI AND ANR. SON OF LATE MD. ABED ALI, RESIDENT OF GARIGHAON, P.O- GARIGAON, GUWAHATI,-12, PS- JALUKBARI, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE DISPUR GUWAHATI 78100 For the Review Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.U. Ahmed, Advocate for respondent No.1. Page No.# 2/6 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA 11.09.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department for the review petitioners/State of Assam & Ors. and Mr. K.U. Ahmed, learned Advocate for respondent No.1. 2. The present review petition has been filed for modification of the judgment dated 12.06.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.365/2022, whereby a direction has been issued to the authorities to release the arrears of salary to respondent No.1 for the long period that he served from 01.06.1996 to 09.06.2011. 3. It would be necessary to recount the facts of this case for the sake of completeness. 4. Respondent No.1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Jalukbari Girls’ High School while the school was still at the venture stage. However, his services were provincialized with effect from 16.11.1991. Later, by an order dated 05.06.1995, he was temporarily appointed as a Subject Teacher in Economics at Jalukabri Higher Secondary School against a post that had been lying unutilized in another school, namely, All Assam Miri Higher Secondary School, North Lakhimpur, which was allotted to Jalukbari. Page No.# 3/6 Because of this appointment, respondent No.1 resigned from his earlier post of Assistant Teacher. Respondent No.1 had been receiving salary regularly uptil May 1996 but no salary was paid to him from June 1996 onwards for the reason that there was no retention order by the Government for the post against which he had been appointed. 5. Surprisingly, even if respondent No.1 was not being paid, he continued to work without any break for about 10(ten) years. In 2006, he had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.5284/2006, seeking regularization of his service, issuance of a retention order and release of arrears from June 1996 and also for payment of current salary. The writ petition was dismissed on 18.12.2006. Thereafter, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal vide WA No.69/2007, which was allowed and the State was directed to consider the case of respondent No.1 by extending the same benefits that had already been given to other similarly situated teachers. 6. Pursuant to the afore-noted judgment, a Screening Committee was constituted to examine the appointments of Subject Teachers, which Committee found that 31 teachers including respondent No.1 had not been receiving the salary because of non-availability of retention orders. It was also observed by the Committee that respondent No.1 was appointed in excess of sanctioned post because the post against which he was appointed was never retained. The other excess teachers who appeared before the Committee were later regularized by the Government but the same benefit was not extended initially to respondent No.1; notwithstanding the fact that the Division Bench had Page No.# 4/6 directed that he be treated at par with those other excess teachers. 7. Pursuant to the Division Bench order, referred to above, the service of respondent No.1 was adjusted/regularized prospectively by an order dated 09.06.2011. He was posted as a Subject Teacher of Economics at Guwahati Night Higher Secondary School, Paltan Bazar, where he joined on 10.06.2011. 8. The difficulty arose when the authorities had refused to pay him any arrears for the period from 01.06.1996 to 09.06.2011 i.e. before the period that his services were regularized. 9. Being aggrieved, he filed WP(C) No.3723/2012 claiming those arrears, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2017, perhaps on the ground that there was no sanctioned post against which he had worked from June 1996 until his regularization and that in earlier round of litigation, the Court had granted only the relief of regularization and not of payment of arrears. 10. This order was challenged by respondent No.1 vide WA No.365/2022, which appeal was allowed on 12.06.2023 and the authorities were directed to release the entire arrears from 01.06.1996 to 09.06.2011 forthwith in favour of respondent No.1. 11. The present review petition has been pressed by Mr. Khataniar on the ground that the original appointment of respondent No.1 as Subject Teacher in 1995 was made without following the mandatory selection procedure under Rule 6 of the Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982. Page No.# 5/6 12. It has been contended that there were no advertisement, written test or interview by a Selection Board, which fact was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. The other ground raised by Mr. Khataniar is that the claim of arrears by respondent No.1 is barred by limitation. 13. Referring to the decision rendered by Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. -Vs- Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, it has been submitted that in such cases mandatory claim in writ petitions is restricted to 3(three) years preceding the filing of the petition. Since respondent No.1 had filed the concerned petition only in 2012, claiming arrears from 1996, the entire period for which payments were not made to him, could not have been directed to be paid. 14. Lastly, it is submitted that the appointment of respondent No.1 was against a non-sanctioned/non-retained post and was, therefore, illegal from the beginning. 15. There is no cavil, Mr. Khataniar argues, continuous service of an illegal appointee does not create a right in his favour. 16. These grounds do not impress us for reviewing any part of the judgment impugned for the reason that these aspects were gone into and the present review petition merely tantamounts to asking the Court to re-hear the matter on already settled subjects. 17. A review is permissible for a patent error apparent and not because another view is possible. 18. We have also taken into account the fact that there is no Page No.# 6/6 dispute about respondent No.1 having served in the school as a teacher and also not having been paid all this while. 19. If at all the review petitioners are not satisfied with the judgment, there are other forums available but review on such set of facts would not be permissible. 20. Thus, we have no option but to dismiss the present review petition. 21. We order accordingly. 22. This review petition is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant