WA 42/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J. CHELAMESWAR THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Judgment and order (CAV) Katakey, J. This appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against t he judgment and order dated 08-09-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP( C) No.595/2008 dismissing the writ petition by refusing the prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to release the arrear salary with effect from 12-03-2001 as well as the current salary. 2. The appellant filed the said writ petition contending th at pursuant to an employment notice dated 28-12-1996 issued by the competent aut hority, she having possessed the requisite qualification, applied for the post o f Assistant Teacher in ME/MV Schools and accordingly, though, she was called for and appeared in the interview3 held in the month of July, 1997, the select list was not initially published because of the ban on appointment imposed by the Go vernment of Assam, which, however, was subsequently prepared by the Sub-Division al Level Selection Board, Udalguri in its meeting held on 12-03-2001 recommendin g the names of 40 (forty) candidates for appointment as Assistant Teacher in ME/ MV School against the vacancies in 3 (three) Legislative Assembly Constituencies , namely Dalgaon, Majbat and Udalguri, wherein the appellant’s name appeared at Serial No.31 against the vacancies in respect of Udalguri Legislative Assembly C onstituency. Accordingly she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Bengbari ME School vide order dated 12-03-2001 issued by the District Elementary Education O fficer, Darrang at Mangaldoi at a fixed pay of Rs.2000/- (two thousand) per mont h, under a Government of India Sponsored Scheme, namely Operation Black board, t hough she was selected for appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 28-12 -1996 against the regular sanctioned post carrying the regular scale of pay. It has further been contended that some other appointees under Operation Black Boar d Scheme, approached this court in WP(C) No.8674/2001 for regularization of thei r services, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 08-04-2002 direc ting the respondent authorities to regularise their services and the appellant b eing similarly placed with those appointees, is also entitled to the same benefi t. The further contention of the appellant in the writ petition is that from th e date of her joining, pursuant to the order of appointment dated 12-03-2001, sh e has not been paid even the fixed pay of Rs.2000/-. 3. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the learned counse l for the parties and on consideration of the averments made in the writ petitio n as well as the provisions of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation ) Rules, 1977 (in short, the Rules ) has held that keeping in view the number o f posts earmarked for ME Schools, which was 5 (five) in numbers for Udalguri Leg islative Assembly Constituency, the petitioner could not have been accommodated pursuant to the selection made by the Selection Board on 12-03-2001, her positio n in such list being at Serial No.31. It has further been held that though the petitioner was selected for appointment in the vacancies in Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency, she was infact appointed in a school beyond the said Leg islative Assembly Constituency, which is invalid being in contravention of the p rovisions of the Rules and such order of appointment of the petitioner on 12-03- 2001 also does not disclose her appointment on the basis of the selection, which was at a fixed pay and for a term up to 31-02-2002. The claim of the appellant for similar relief as granted in WP(C) No.8764/2001, which give rise to Writ Ap peal No.376/2002, was negated by the learned Single Judge, as the said writ appe al was disposed of vide order dated 01-07-2008 issuing certain directions in res pect of the incumbents numbering 5790 teachers, out of which 2093 were appointed in the middle schools in the year 2001 under the Operation Black Board Scheme, which list does not include the appellant’s name. Having held so the learned Si ngle Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. D.C. Mahanta, the learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.R. Pathak, the learned Standing Counsel, Education Depa rtment, Government of Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. D. D as, the learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council, appearing for th e respondent No.6. 5. Mr. Mahanta, the learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant h as submitted that though the appellant in the writ petition has prayed for regul arisation in service apart from the arrear and the current salary pursuant to he r appointment order dated 12-03-2001, the appellant does not press the prayer fo r regularization in service, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge by t he impugned order. Relating to the entitlement of the appellant to arrear and c urrent salary, it has been submitted by Mr. Mahanta that since she was appointed by the competent authority, namely the District Elementary Education Officer, s he is entitled to the fixed salary of Rs.2000/- per month, as she is still servi ng in that capacity since her appointment. According to the learned Sr. Counsel , the learned Single Judge has rejected such prayer on the ground that her appoi ntment was not valid, though the appellant is entitled to the fixed salary, she having been appointed by the competent authority, for the period for which she r endered her services, even if her appointment may not be in accordance with the relevant Rules. 6. Mr. Pathak, the learned Standing Counsel, Education Depa rtment, Government of Assam, supporting the judgment and order passed by the lea rned Single Judge has submitted that since at the relevant point of time, the Di strict Elementary Education Officer, Mangaldoi, issued appointment orders appoin ting persons in excess of the sanctioned posts, the Director of Elementary Educa tion, Assam made an enquiry and declared all the appointments made by Sri Jogen Bora, the then District Elementary Education Officer, which includes the appoint ment of the appellant also, as illegal and void ab initio vide order dated 18-10 -2001, he having appointed 509 teachers illegally against the non-existent posts during the period from 08-03-2001 to 31-03-2001 and as such, the appellant is n ot entitled to any relief claimed in the writ petition. Mr. Das, the learned St anding Counsel, BTC has also supported the submissions of the learned Standing C ounsel, Education Department, Government of Assam. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counse l for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The appellant though was selected for appointment as Ass istant Teacher in ME School, against the vacancies in Udalguri Legislative Assem bly Constituency, by the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board in its meeting dat ed 12-03-2001, pursuant to the advertisement dated 28-12-1996 issued by the comp etent authority to fill up the regular sanctioned posts, the appellant, however, was not appointed pursuant to such selection conducted by the authority under t he provisions of the said Rules. The order of appointment dated 12-03-2001 issu ed by the then District Elementary Education Officer reveals that she was appoin ted as Assistant Teacher in Bengbari ME School, which is in Mangaldoi Sub-Divisi on and not within Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency and at a fixed pay of Rs.2000/- for a term up to 31-03-2002. The said order of appointment also do es not disclose that she was appointed pursuant to the selection process, which in any case cannot be so, as the Sub-Divisional Selection Board conducted the se lection on 12-03-2001, i.e. the date when she was appointed by the then District Elementary Education Officer, Mangaldoi, and it is not the case of the appellan t that the said select list prepared by the Sub-Divisional Selection Board was a pproved by the Director of Elementary Education as required under the Rules. Th e appointments made by the then District Elementary Education Officer, Sri Jogen Bora, during the period from 08-03-2001 to 31-03-2001, when he was holding the charge of District Elementary Education Officer, had been declared as illegal an d void ab initio by the Director of Elementary Education Officer, Assam vide ord er dated 18-10-2001, which includes the appointment of the appellant also, after it was found in an enquiry that the said District Elementary Education Officer had appointed 509 teachers during that period illegally against the non-existent posts. The said order dated 18-10-2001 has not been challenged by the appellan t. 9. That apart, the appellant having been selected for appoi ntment against the vacancies in Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency, cann ot be appointed, under the provisions of the Rules, in a school beyond the said Constituency, as has been done in the instant case, since the Rule envisaged Leg islative Assembly Constituency wise selection and appointment. The appointment of the appellant being illegal and void ab initio, which had been held to be so by the Director of Elementary Education by the order dated 18-10-2001, the appel lant is not entitled to the salary as claimed in the writ petition. 10. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has right ly dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which requires no interf erence in appeal. 11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost.