WP(C) 5705/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Ms. D Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. MR Pathak, le arned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam. The petitioners claim to have been serving as Assistant Teachers in various Midd le Schools in the district of Nagaon since the year from 1993-94. Though, initi ally they were paid their salary, but from the year 1995 the same was withheld. Being aggrieved, they approached this Court and the issue was eventually laid b efore the Manoharan Committee, which had been entrusted with the duty to inquire into the illegal appointment of teachers all over the State. According to the petitioners, the said Committee cleared their cases along with those similarly s ituated, and finally by the order dated 17.08.2005 of the Director, Elementary E ducation their services were regularised with effect from the date of their join ing in the permanent vacant posts. They were thereby accorded a pay scale of Rs . 3130-6600/- per month. The present grievance of the petitioner relates to non-payment of their arrear s alary from the year 1995 till the aforementioned date of regularization of their services. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that as admittedly t he State has utilized their (petitioners) services for the aforementioned period s and thus are liable in law to release their entitlements as due to them, Mr. P athak, has urged that a bare look into the order dated 17.08.2005 would clearly reveal that they had been branded as illegally appointed teachers and that as on e time exception in terms of the Cabinet decision to that effect their services have been regularized strictly in terms thereof. Further, as the petitioners ha ve accepted the order in toto without any reservation, their above claim at this stage is untenable in law. Ms. Borgohain, has drawn the attention of this Cour t to paragraph 14 of the writ petition to contend that the State respondents, th e order dated 17.08.2005 notwithstanding, have made a conscious departure theref rom by releasing the arrear pay of a person similarly situated for the period pr ior to the regularization. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a scrutiny of the order dated 17.08.2005, this Court is left unconvinced by the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner. A plain reading the order dated 17.08.2005 indicates that the s ame relates to teachers who had been appointed in excess of posts during 01.03.1 991 to 30.11.1996 and that their services have been decided to be regularised on the basis of a Cabinet decision to that effect on and from the date of their jo ining the permanent vacant posts as catalogued in the list enclosed thereto. The order in specific terms mentioned that the concerned teachers would be eligible for salary from the date of their regularization. The petitioners since then ha ve been enjoying the benefits in terms thereof. As the order reveals the initial appointments of the petitioners have been determined to be in excess of posts a nd, therefore, they cannot be construed to be legally appointment teachers. Thi s is, in the context of the claim which they now make for arrear salaries for th e pre-regularization period. Vis-a-vis the averments made in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, suffice it to mention that the same are vague and lack in precision, even prima facie to sati sfy this Curt about the identicalness of the basic facts bearing on the appointm ent of that teacher qua the petitioners herein. Having regard to the unambiguous and unequivocal contents of the order dated 17.08.2005, this Court is thus not inclined to entertain the petitioners’ plea for arrear salary for the pre-regula rization period on the basis thereof. On a totality of the considerations as enumerated herein, this petition is const rued to be lacking in merit. It is , therefore, dismissed. No costs.