WP(C) 1670/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A.ANSARI Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. M.R. Pathak, le arned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Hea rd also Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel, for the respondent No.5. Pursuant to the directions, issued by order, dated 01.02.2011, by the respondent No.3, namely, Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Cirlce, Nalbari, addressed to the respondent No.4, namely, Principal cum Secretary, Debiram Pathsala H.S. School, Nalbari, the petitioner’s salary, as Assistant Teacher, has been stopped . Aggrieved by the decision of the State Government not to pay the salary of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court with the present writ applicati on, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of app ropriate directions. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that the petit ioner was appointed, as an Assistant Teacher of Debiram Pathsala H.S. School, Na lbari, by order issued, in this regard, on 27.01.95, by the Director of Secondar y Education, Assam. While appointing the writ petitioner, no selection process w as held. The appointment of the petitioner was, thus, completely illegal inasmuc h as no appointment, in public domain, can be made without giving an opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process inasmuch as Art icle 14 and 16, when read together, make the State responsible to ensure that no employment, in public domain, is given by the State without affording equal opp ortunity to participate in the selection process to all eligible intending candi dates. The petitioner’s appointment being illegal, the petitioner is obviously n ot an irregular appointee, but an illegal appointee as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner refers to the Cabinet decision of the Government published, on 10 .08.2000, by the Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary & Secondary) Department. This circular is not applicable to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the ci rcular, even if followed, applies only to irregular appointees and not to illega l appointees. Being, thus, not covered by the circular, dated 10.08.2000, aforem entioned, the petitioner has no right to demand either regularization or salary from the State respondents. In the above view of the matter, it is clear that the petitioner has not been ab le to make out any case warranting this Court’s interference under Article 226. This writ petition is, therefore, not admitted and the same shall accordingly st and dismissed. No order as to costs.