WP(C) 2739/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI Heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, a nd Mr. A. D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearin g on behalf of the State respondents. The petitioners herein claim that they were duly selected by the Divi sional Selection Committee, Barpeta, as Assistant Teachers for various LP and ME schools at Barpeta, and, accordingly, they were appointed as Assistant Teachers and they have been regularly serving till date. Their grievances are that their services have not been regularized and they have not been paid their respective salaries for the period they have rendered their services to the full satisfact ion of the respondent authorities. The respondents have disputed the legality and validity of the appoin tments of the petitioners on the ground that the appointments of the petitioners had been made without any selection process having been adhered to and not agai nst sanctioned posts. The respondents further contend that the petitioners are n either entitled to payment of their salaries nor are they entitled to regulariza tion of their services. Considered the stand taken by the respondents and the petitioners in their respective affidavits and the minutes of the Cabinet decision in the meeti ng held on 26.2.2011, which the petitioners rely upon. While considering a batch of writ petitions, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2006 (2) GLT 216, this Court has directed that the State resp ondents shall constitute a Committee for determining, amongst others, the validi ty of the appointments of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers and also for det ermining as to whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their s ervices and payment of their salaries as have been claimed by them. The Committe e has accordingly been constituted by the State Government and the same has been functioning. Considering the fact that this writ petition, too, involves the questi on of determination of the validity of the appointments of the petitioners and t his aspect involves determination of the disputed questions of facts, it is here by directed that the State respondents shall place the cases of the petitioners, too, before the said Committee and the said Committee shall examine the grievan ces of the petitioners in the light of the relevant provisions of law and also i n the light of the relevant judicial pronouncements, including, amongst others, the decision in Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar(supra). With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall sta nd disposed of. No order as to costs.