Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010081532026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2286/2026 NILOTPAL DAS AND 6 ORS S/O- LT. NIKHIL CHANDRA DAS, R/O- VILL.- GHORAMARA, P.O.- CHAITANYA NAGAR, DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM 2: NARAYAN CHANDRA PAUL S/O- LT. SIRISH CHANDRA PAUL R/O- VILL.- GIADHURA P.O.- KARNAMADHU DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM 3: SUJIT NAMASUDRA S/O- LT. SUKHAMOY NAMASUDRA R/O- VILL.- JATAI P.O.- SHYAM NAGAR DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM 4: APURBA CHAKRABORTY S/O- LT. RANADHAN CHAKRABORTY R/O- VILL.- DHURAJIN P.O.- LATU DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM 5: KUTUB UDDIN CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE MEHTAB UDDIN CHOUDHURY R/O- VILL AND P.O.- BAGBARI DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM 6: BIDHU BHUSAN DAS Page No.# 2/7 S/O- LATE ADHAR CHANDRA DAS R/O- VILL.- KHOLA P.O.- MARJATKANDI DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM 7: RAM JANAM KURMI S/O- LT. JAGADISH KURMI VILL- BIDYANAGAR P.O.- BIDYANAGAR DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SDC SRIBHUMI P.O. SRIBHUMI DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788710 5:THE TREASURY OFFICER SRIBHUMI BADARPUR R.K. NAGAR P.O. SRIBHUMI Page No.# 3/7 DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 78871 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,MR. S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., SC, FINANCE DEPTT. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 11.09. 2026 Heard Mr. M. Khan learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. H. Terangpi, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education, Ms. R. M. Barooah, learned Standing Counsel, Finance. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by seven petitioners, who claim to be working in Grade-IV posts in their respective schools, the particulars of which are mentioned in Paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition. The petitioners claim that they were appointed by orders dated 14.02.1994, 10.01.1994, 29.01.1994, 29.01.1994, 14.02.1994, 29.01.1994, and 27.01.1994 respectively by the Director of Secondary Education. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, these petitioners have been rendering their services regularly and are presently rendering their services by virtue of the appointment orders appointing them as Grade-IV employees in their respective schools. The claims of the petitioners are that their salaries with effect from June, 1996 to till date have not been released. Page No.# 4/7 3. The writ petitioners had earlier approached this Court, pursuant to which directions were issued. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Secondary Education had issued an impugned order dated 16.03.2026, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. In the said order, the cases of the writ petitioners were rejected on the ground that they were working against non- retention posts and there were no advertisement/ formal interview when they were appointed. The said impugned order further reflects that, during the hearing, the petitioners failed to produce any authenticated documents in support of their claims. Therefore, the Director rejected the contentions of the writ petitioners. 4. It is to be noted that, since the cases of the petitioners were not considered, they had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5138/2024. However, during the pendency of the writ petition the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 was passed rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners. 5. A perusal of the appointment orders enclosed to the petition reflects that the writ petitioners were appointed pursuant to orders passed by the Director of Secondary Education, and that the said appointments stood extended vide orders passed by the Inspector of Schools. Their claim is that they are presently continuing to serve in their respective posts, while their salaries have not been released. The Respondents have filed their affidavit, defending the order passed. The said impugned order reflects that the matter was heard, that the petitioners were Grade-IV employees in different schools, and that they were appointed on ad hoc basis without any proper advertisement or interview. The finding of the Director is that, during the process of hearing, they failed to Page No.# 5/7 produce authenticated documentary evidence as claimed. Further relying on the Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436, and Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Brhmanand, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 241, the Director concluded that a person appointed without advertisement and without participation in a selection process is not entitled to claim any relief including the salary, and that the liability of the State to pay salary would arise only when the appointments are made pursuant to the statutory of the rules complied with. 6. What is noticed from the perusal of the order and the affidavit is that there is no reference to the original orders issued appointing the writ petitioners. The orders of appointment enclosed to the petition reflect that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to order passed by the then Director of Secondary Education, Assam. There is no finding in the impugned order of the Director, which is under challenge in the present proceeding, that these appointment orders issued by his predecessor had been recalled, or that these orders are not genuine, or that they were not issued by the Director at the relevant point in time. There is also no finding in the impugned order that any report was called for from the Inspector/ the BEEO/ the DEEO regarding the claim of the petitioners that they are currently serving in their respective schools. 7. Under such circumstances, where the appointment orders of the writ petitioners are not in question, and the appointment order of the writ petitioners have not been shown to have been recalled, their claim for arrear salary, at least till the date they are found to be working, is required to be paid by the Page No.# 6/7 Department, notwithstanding the fact that their appointments were not made pursuant to any selection process or advertisement. If the services of the writ petitioners were extracted by their respective schools, then the employer is duty-bound to release the salaries for the services so extracted, whether it be the school authorities or the State. However, the claim of the petitioners are that they are presently serving in their respective schools without any salary, cannot be verified in the absence of essential facts being pleaded in the present proceedings, as the concerned schools are not arrayed as party respondents. Furthermore, the impugned order, as discussed above, does not contain any finding as to whether any enquiry was made by the Director to find out the claims of the writ petitioners that they are presently serving in their respective schools. 8. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the considered view that the matter relating to the claim of the writ petitioner for release of arrear salary is required to be revisited by the Director of Secondary Education by calling for all necessary records and passing appropriate orders relating to the employment of the petitioners and also upon proper enquiry with regard to the status and continuance of the services claimed to have been rendered by the writ petitioners. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the matter will have to be re-examined by the Director in terms of the directions issued hereinafter. 10. The impugned order dated 16.03.2026, is therefore set aside. Page No.# 7/7 11. The matter is remanded back to the Director to call for all relevant records, cause a detailed enquiry into the claims of the petitioners as to the services rendered by them in their respective schools by calling for the relevant records from the school authorities, and thereafter pass appropriate orders with regard to the entitlement of the salary for the services rendered by the writ petitioners. 12. The Director of Secondary Education will take note of the ratios rendered in the recent judgments passed by the Apex Court in Jaggo vs Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 INSC 1034 and Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 at the time of passing such orders. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above, without expressing any opinion on the specific merits of the case vis-a-vis the writ petitioners’ claim with regard to the services stated to have been rendered. 14. The enquiry, as directed above, shall conducted within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15. Needless to say any such order that is passed, copies thereof shall be shall be served upon the writ petitioners. The petitioners, as well as the other stakeholders shall also be heard by the Director before any such order is passed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant