WP(C) 7243/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral) 1. Both the writ petitions having involved common questions of law on more or less identical facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this co mmon order. 2. I have heard Sri A. K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Mr. M. R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Educa tion Department. 3. In January, 1996, 50 posts of graduate teachers in High/ Higher Secondar y Schools of the State of Assam were created for being filled up by candidates b elonging to the Tea Garden and ex-Tea Garden categories. Out of the posts so cre ated specified numbers were allotted to different districts and were required to be filled up by the end of February 1996 as the same carried retention upto the end of the financial year of 1995-96. Perhaps, to meet such a situation, direct ions were issued to the Inspectors of Schools of the different districts to appo int candidates of the abovenamed categories on ad hoc basis subject to their sel ection later by the district level selection board. 37 posts were filled up on ad hoc basis in the above manner leaving 13 posts vacant. Thereafter, selections were held and the select list was published on 7.12.99 consisting of 18 names i ncluding those of the four petitioners. However, appointments from the said sele ct list were not forthcoming as there was a ban on appointments with effect form 6.12.99. The said ban could only be lifted with the approval of the then State Level Empowered Committee (hereinafter referred to as the SLEC) [now SIU (Financ e)]. In fact, by a W.T. message dated 25.3.2001 the ban was lifted for certain c ategories of posts. However, the same did not cover the posts in question. 4. Notwithstanding the above, the then Director of Secondary Education issu ed a communication dated 29th of March 2001 to the Inspector of Schools for fill ing up the vacant posts in question in terms of the aforesaid W.T. message dated 25.3.2001. As appointments were not forthcoming the writ petitions in question were filed seeking appropriate directions. 5. The ban on appointments imposed with effect from 6.12.99, as already not iced, could be lifted only with the approval of the SLEC [now SIU (finance)]. Su ch approval of the SLEC or its successor body, naturally, pre-supposes a proposa l by the concerned department for lifting of the ban. In the present case, admit tedly, no proposal for lifting of the ban on appointment against any of the post s in question was ever placed before the SLEC. In such a situation there could h ave been no occasion for the SLEC to consider whether the ban should be lifted f or the posts in question. There is no explanation, whatsoever, from the departme nt as to why the SLEC was not moved for lifting of the ban insofar as the posts in question is concerned. The lifting of the ban by the SLEC on other posts, fro m time to time, would be suggestive of the fact that had the department moved th e SLEC with proper justification for lifting of the ban in respect of the posts in question the same might have been done. In the absence of requisite action on the part of the Department, the failure to give effect to the selections made c annot be held to be justified. 6. There is yet another aspect of the case which would require consideratio n of the Court for the purpose of considering the relief that should be granted to the petitioners. Admittedly, 37 persons were appointed on ad hoc basis agains t the 50 posts created. The aforesaid appointments on ad hoc basis have continue d and there are reasons to take the view that the aforesaid 37 persons have also been regularized in the meantime. The said 37 persons have not selected. The pi cture that emerges is ironical. Persons not selected have been appointed and sub sequently regularized though the petitioners who are selected candidates are wit hout any appointment. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that a dir ection for appointment of the petitioners against four posts in questions should be made by the Court. 7. At this stage, Sri M. R. Pathak, learned departmental counsel, has submi tted that the original select list containing 18 names including those of the pe titioners nor the proceedings of the Selection Board are available. What alone i s available is a photocopy of the select list signed by three persons who possib ly acted as the members of the said Selection Board. Sri Pathak, learned departm ental counsel, has further stated that the aforesaid three persons, who had put their signatures appearing in the photocopy of the select list, are one Sri Mohs in Ali, presently the Director of Secondary Education, one Smt. Minati Tanti, wh o is a serving employee in the Directorate of Secondary Education and the third person is one Sri Mahidur Rahman who retired as a Deputy Director of the Second ary Education. Sri Pathak has submitted that in the aforesaid fact situation bef ore giving appointments to the petitioners the State should be granted the liber ty to verify, from the aforesaid persons the relevant facts surrounding the sele ction. 8. On due consideration of the submission advanced by the learned departmen tal counsel the Court is of the view that the stand taken is fair and in public interest. Appointments of the petitioners, therefore, will be made only after ve rification of the facts and circumstances surrounding the selection process, if required, by duly examining the aforesaid three persons whose signatures appear in the photocopy of the select list. If on such verification the selection proce ss and the select list is found to have been validly prepared, appointments will be conferred to the petitioners against four of the remaining 13 posts which mu st still be available. Naturally, such appointments will be made after completio n of all formalities including obtaining of approval of the SIU (Finance) and re tention for the posts, if such retention is required. 9. Both the writ petitions, therefore, shall stand disposed of in terms of the above directions.