Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010170212022 2026:GAU-AS:3751 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6016/2022 CHAYANIKA PATHAK W/O- SRI ROMESH CH. CHUTIA, R/O- SADARI BARUA PATH, P.O. KHELMATI, P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR 4:THE DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 5:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, MS D DUTTA Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 11.03.2026 Heard Mr. P J Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S M T Chistie, learned standing counsel, Department of School Education, Assam, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has prayed for authorizing to her, her due salaries w.e.f March 2007 till 30.01.2021 and also for reckoning the said period for the purpose of authorizing to the petitioner, her pension and pensionary benefits, under the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 3. The case in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issues, arising in the present writ petition is noticed, as under. The petitioner was initially appointed as a stipendiary teacher at a monthly stipend of Rs. 900/- (Rupees Nine Hundred Only) by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur, vide an order dated 30.01.1996. The petitioner joined her services in pursuance to the said order of appointment dated 30.01.1996, on 05.02.1996. The petitioner, on joining her services was being paid her stipend. Thereafter, vide an order dated 01.08.2001, issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur, the petitioner was placed on the regular scale of pay. The petitioner was also deputed for undergoing Junior Basic Training at Basic Training Center, Azad, North Lakhimpur. The petitioner, accordingly, contends to have undergone the said course and successfully completed the same. The petitioner also projects that the respondent authorities had already allotted the GPF account number to her, however, a certificate of the same was not received by her. Thereafter, vide an order dated 29.09.2004, it is projected that the services of the petitioner came to be regularized by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur. The salaries of the Page No.# 3/8 petitioner, having been withheld, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.10.2006, for release of her salaries. In the said representation, the petitioner had projected that against the post from which she was drawing her monthly salaries, another person was appointed on compassionate grounds and, accordingly, the petitioner had approached the authorities for taking appropriate steps so as to ensure that the release of her monthly salaries is not hampered. The said representation of the petitioner was forwarded by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur, to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, vide a communication dated 16.11.2006. The petitioner’s salaries having been stopped w.e.f March 2007 and no reason having been assigned for the same, the petitioner, vide a representation dated 25.08.2007, approached the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur, praying for release of her monthly salaries in arrears as well as the current salaries. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a number of representations on the said issue. The District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), submitted an enquiry report with regard to the non-authorization of the salaries to the petitioner, w.e.f March 2007. In the said report, it was highlighted that the stoppage of salaries of the petitioner had occasioned on account of appointment against the post held by her of another incumbent on compassionate grounds by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. The matter was further processed and vide an order dated 30.01.2021, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, the petitioner came to be accommodated as an Assistant Teacher in an LP School with prospective effect from 01.11.2020. The said order also contained stipulations to the effect that the petitioner would be covered under the new pension scheme and the appointment would be only with prospective effect from 01.11.2020 and the petitioner cannot claim any benefit, whatsoever, in respect of the past services rendered by her prior to 01.11.2020. The petitioner, in terms of the said order dated 30.01.2021, submitted her Joining Report on 01.02.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations before the respondent authorities for release of her salaries in arrears w.e.f March 2007 and the same, not having been considered, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. P J Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by reiterating the Page No.# 4/8 facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner, admittedly, was initially recruited as a stipendiary teacher and, thereafter, on completion of the basic training course, she was authorized the scale of pay attached to the post of Assistant Teacher in an LP School. He further submitted that the petitioner was regularized in her services vide an order dated 29.09.2004. Mr. Saikia, submits that the petitioner was being authorized her salaries. However, on account of an appointment effected against the post held by the petitioner, in pursuance to orders issued, in this connection, by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, the salaries of the petitioner was stopped and the representation submitted by her had led to the issuance of the said order dated 30.01.2021, accommodating the petitioner against a vacant post of Assistant Teacher in LP School with prospective effect from 01.11.2020. 5. Mr. P J Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, having already been regularized in her services, the fresh appointment effected in her case is of no consequence and the petitioner must be deemed to have continued in her services in terms of her earlier order of appointment which was subsequently, regularized. 6. In the above premises, Mr. P J Saikia, learned counsel submits that a direction is mandated to be issued to the respondent authorities to construe the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f March 2007 to 30.01.2021. In view of the above premises, Mr. P J Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the period of service rendered by the petitioner since the date of her initial appointment on stipendiary basis i.e. w.e.f 30.01.1996, is required to be construed for the purpose of extending to the petitioner, her pension and pensionary benefits, in terms of the Rules of 1969. He further submits that the service of the petitioner, having already been regularized, the arrears of salary receivable by the petitioner w.e.f March 2007 to 30.01.2021, would be mandated to be released to the petitioner. 7. Per contra, Mr. S M T Chistie, learned standing counsel, Department of School Education, Assam, appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was found to have been irregularly/illegally appointed as a Teacher. He submits that the cases of such irregularly/illegally appointed Teachers were taken up for consideration by the Department and in pursuance to advertisements issued for screening of such Teachers, the Page No.# 5/8 petitioner had participated in such screening process. The petitioner, in terms of the procedure laid down in the matter for carrying out the said screening, was found to have been placed in list-1 and accordingly, the Screening Committee had recommended for appointment of the petitioner against a vacant post of Assistant Teacher of an LP School. Accordingly, the respondent authorities had proceeded to appoint the petitioner against a regular sanctioned vacant post vide issuance of the order dated 30.01.2021. He further submits that the petitioner, without any objection, had proceeded to accept the order dated 30.01.2021 with the conditions as set-out, therein, and had submitted her Joining Report in the matter without reflecting, therein, any objection in such acceptance by her of the stipulations as contained in the order dated 30.01.2021. He further submits that the accommodation of the petitioner was in pursuance to a Cabinet decision, arrived at in the matter, in its meeting held on 07.10.2020 and the same having mandated that the such accommodation of irregularly/illegally appointed Teachers would be with prospective effect, it is not permissible for the petitioner to institute the present writ petition seeking a direction for release of her salaries in arrears w.e.f March 2007, after she had accepted the conditions as set out in the order dated 30.01.2021. 8. Mr. S M T Chistie, learned standing counsel, appearing for the respondents, further submits that in the writ petition, the petitioner has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that her initial recruitment as a stipendiary teacher was in pursuance to a due process of selection undertaken in accordance with provisions of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. In the above premises, the petitioner submits that the prayer of the petitioner for releasing to her of her arrear salaries w.e.f March 2007 till 30.01.2021 would not mandate an acceptance from this Court and the writ petition would be mandated to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. 11. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has not brought on record any materials to demonstrate that her initial appointment as a stipendiary teacher effected vide order dated 30.01.1996, was so effected in pursuance of a due process of selection Page No.# 6/8 undergone by her in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. It is seen that the petitioner, after her such engagement as a stipendiary teacher was deputed to undergo Junior Basic Training (JBT) and in the meanwhile, also authorized a scale of pay by the jurisdictional Deputy Inspector of Schools. Although in the order dated 01.08.2001, by which the petitioner was allowed to enjoy a regular scale of pay, an order of the Additional Secretary of the Government of Assam, Education Department dated 09.09.2000, is reflected, a copy, thereof, has not been brought on record. It is also found that the petitioner was authorized her scale of pay prior to completion of her Junior Basic Training (JBT) course. It is a settled position that a stipendiary teacher is entitled to draw his/her pay in the scale of pay authorized to the post of Assistant Teacher of an LP School only after completion by her of her Junior Basic Training (JBT) course. The petitioner had completed her Junior Basic Training (JBT) course only on 12.03.2003. The petitioner has also brought on record an order dated 29.09.2004 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur, by which the services of the petitioner was regularised. The said order reflects that the same was so done as per the certificate of the Joint Secretary, Health Department, North Lakhimpur. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur, is not empowered under the provisions of the Rules holding the field to regularise the services of a Teacher functioning in a School under his jurisdiction. Such power is reserved to the Director of the Elementary Education and/or the Government in the Department of School Education (earlier Department of Elementary Education). Accordingly, the regularisation of the services of the petitioner vide the order dated 29.09.2004, in the considered view of this Court cannot be held to have given the petitioner, permanency in her services. The salaries drawn by the petitioner was stopped w.e.f March 2007 and such stoppage is found to be the result of an appointment effected against the post held by the petitioner by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. The petitioner, thereafter, was not paid her salaries. It is seen that the Government of Assam in Education Department had approached the cabinet with regard to the regularization of irregularly/illegally appointed teachers in various Elementary Schools of the state. 12. The Education Department, thereafter, proposed to constitute a Screening Page No.# 7/8 Committee to examine the validity of the appointment of the teachers, who were identified to have irregularly/illegally appointed. Accordingly, an Office Memorandum dated 15.11.2011 was issued constituting a Screening Committee to examine the cases of such irregularly/illegally appointed Teachers. In terms of the said Office Memorandum, advertisements came to be issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, inviting applications from such irregularly/illegally appointed Teachers, appointed during the period of 1991-2001. The petitioner was one of the candidates who had appeared before the Screening Committee. On conclusion of the proceedings before the Screening Committee and also after the verification of such recommendations made, in pursuance to further decisions taken in the matter, the recommendations, as made by the Screening Committees were segregated into 3 (Three) different lists. List No. 1 incorporating teachers who had received salaries up to 2007 and onwards and also had completed their Junior Basic Training course/D.El.Ed. List No. 2 incorporated teachers who had received salaries up to 2007 but had not acquired the Junior Basic Training course (JBT)/D.El.Ed. List-3 incorporated candidates who had neither received salaries nor had completed the prescribed training courses i.e. Junior Basic Training course (JBT)/D.El.Ed. The matter was, thereafter, processed for placing before the cabinet, seeking approval for accommodating those teachers who were placed in list No. 1 against personal/super-numerary posts with prospective effect from the date of approval of the cabinet. The teachers who were included in list No. 2 were proposed to be accommodated as tutors with prospective effect from the date of approval of the cabinet. The said proposals as placed before the cabinet was approved by it in its meeting held on 07.10.2020. The petitioner being placed in list-1, she was accommodated as a Teacher vide issuance of an order dated 30.01.2021. In the order dated 30.01.2021, it was stipulated that the accommodation of the petitioner as a teacher was purely personal in nature and would cease to exist as and when the petitioner retires from her services or expires. It was further stipulated that an undertaking would be mandated to be given by the petitioner along with her Joining Report that she would be covered by the new Pension Rules. It was further stipulated in the said order dated 30.01.2021 that the accommodated teacher would get prospective effect from 01.11.2020 only and he/she cannot claim any benefit, whatsoever, in respect of the past Page No.# 8/8 services rendered by him/her prior to 01.11.2020. In other words, the stipulations contained in the order dated 30.01.2021, had the effect of a fresh appointment order being issued in respect of the irregularly/illegally appointed teachers placed in list-1 as noticed hereinabove, and such appointment was made with prospective effect i.e. w.e.f 01.11.2020. Further, such appointees were also barred from claiming their arrears of salaries prior to 01.11.2020. 13. This Court finds that the petitioner in pursuance to the said order dated 30.01.2021 accepted the same and submitted her Joining Report on 01.02.2021, without any objection, whatsoever. In the present writ petition also the petitioner had not challenged the stipulations as contained in the order dated 30.01.2021. 14. In view of the above position obtaining in the matter and the petitioner not having challenged the stipulations as contained in the order dated 30.01.2021 and she having accepted it by joining her services by submitting a fresh Joining Report, this Court is of the considered view that no benefit would be permissible to be extended to the petitioner, herein, contrary to what has been, stipulated in the order dated 30.01.2021. The petitioner has also not disputed the fact that the petitioner was construed to be an irregularly/illegally appointed teachers and a fresh appointment, as effected in her case, vide the order dated 30.01.2021, was so done in pursuance to the petitioner appearing before the Screening Committee as constituted in the matter vide the Office Memorandum dated 15.11.2011. Accordingly, the petitioner is not found to be entitled to any further benefit, other than what came to be extended to her vide the order dated 30.01.2021. 15. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merits and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant