WA 112/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT & ORDER Ranjan Gogoi, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.4.2009 passed by a lea rned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition filed by the appellan t (WP(C) No.6468 of 2007) challenging her termination from service by an order d ated 8.10.2007 has been dismissed. 2. The facts are long and an attempt must be made to summarise and recite o nly what would be strictly required for the purpose of the present case. An advertisement dated 3.9.1991 was issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, inviting applications for appointment to 200 posts of Assistan t Teachers and 100 posts of Language Teachers along with some other posts in pro vincialised High/Higher Secondary Schools of the State. The appellant/writ petit ioner was a candidate in the said selection. On completion of the selection proc ess select lists for five constituencies of Nalbari District i.e. Barama, Barkhe tri, Dharmapur, Nalbari and Patacharkuchi were published on 4.1.95. On the basi s of that the name of the petitioner was included in the select list prepared fo r Dharmapur constituency she was appointed. Many other candidates were also appo inted. All such appointments came to be challenged in a series of writ petitions before this Court, the lead case being registered and numbered as C.R. No.5216/ 1996 (Shri Dulal Tahbildar vs. State of Assam and others). The said writ petitio ns were disposed of on 2.8.97 with the following operative directions : For the reasons stated above, I dispose of this batch of writ petitions with a direction that the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Educatio n Department, and the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, shall within two m onths from today give effect to the orders dated 18th, 19th and 20th November, 1 996 (Annexures-’F’ & ’G’ to the affidavit-in-opposition and Annexures-’K’, ’L’ & ’M’ to the further affidavit) relating to Dharmapur, Nalbari, Barama, Barkhetri and Patacharkuchi constituencies of Nalbari District, canceling the appointment s of persons outside the select lists as well as the appointments of all those p ersons who were not entitled to appointment on the basis of their position of me rit in the select lists and as per the provisions of law for reservation, and in their place offer appointment to the candidates who were entitled to appointmen t as per their position of merit in the select lists and as per the provisions o f law for reservation. It is made clear that in case any of the candidates to wh om an offer of appointment is made does not turn up for appointment within one m onth of service of such appointment letter the offer of appointment shall be mad e to the next person in order of merit in the select list and as per provisions of law for reservation. A person aggrieved by the said orders dated 18th, 19th and 20th November, 1996, including a persons whose appointment is cancelled may make his submission before the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Ass am, Education Department, as mentioned in the said orders, I further direct that all ad hoc appointments existing as on date shall forthwith be terminated by th e State respondents. 3. Another writ petition involving the same subject matter i.e. Civil Rule No.5378 of 1997 was disposed of on 5.5.98. The direction of the Court for cancel lation of appointment of persons who were outside the select list or whose merit position did not permit appointment and inclusion of the names of the entitled candidates and for their appointments involved an exhaustive process of verific ation at the conclusion of which an order was passed by the Director of Secondar y Education on 28.12.98 by which 28 general category candidates, earlier appoint ed, were found to be not entitled to such appointment whereas in their places th e names of 28 other entitled persons were identified. Accordingly, appointments of the persons who were found not entitled to appointment were terminated and on that basis the 28 persons who were found to be so entitled were appointed. Thi s was in respect of Dharmapur constituency which is the subject matter of the pr esent lis though it must be put on record that a similar exercise had been carri ed out in respect of the select lists prepared for the other four constituencies of Nalbari district. The order of termination and consequential appointment dat ed 28.12.98 passed by the Director was followed by separate orders of terminatio n issued by the Inspector of Schools on 25.1.99 with effect from which date the service of the petitioner stood terminated. It must be specifically put on recor d that before resorting to the aforesaid terminations show cause notices dated 2 4.7.98 were issued to all affected parties and their responses to the action con templated as mentioned in the show cause notices were obtained. Challenging the termination orders dated 28.12.98 and 25.1.99 passed by the Director of Secondar y Education and the Inspector of Schools, respectively, a series of writ petitio ns came to be filed before this Court i.e. Civil Rule Nos.494/1999, 506/1999, 41 4/1999, 441/1999, 474/1999, 3844/1999 and 407/1999. The appellant/writ petitione r had also instituted a separate proceeding in this regard which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No.804/1999. In all the said writ petitions interim o rders were passed staying the operation of the impugned terminations. In the cas e of the petitioner the date of the said interim order is 22.2.99. All the afore said writ petitions stood withdrawn except Civil Rule No.414/1999 and Civil Rule No.506/1999 wherein the Court had directed the show cause notices dated 24.7.98 which had remained pending to be adjudicated upon. The writ petition filed by t he present appellant- writ petitioner i.e. Civil Rule No.804/1999 was similarly withdrawn on 14.1.2005. While the matter had remained so situated, in another pr oceeding i.e. WP(C) No.5412/2002 queries were made by the Court with regard to i mplementation of the order dated 2.8.97 passed in Civil Rule No.5216/1996 and ot her connected cases. To answer the said queries of the Court enquires were carri ed out by the departmental authorities in the course of which it came to their k nowledge that all the writ petitions filed challenging the termination orders st ood withdrawn or disposed of. It is in these circumstances that, once again, fre sh orders of termination were issued on 8.10.2007 including the termination of t he petitioner. The fresh termination orders dated 8.10.2007 came to be challenge d in a bunch of 8 writ petitions including WP(C) No.6468 of 2007 filed by the ap pellant-writ petitioner. All the eight writ petitions including WP(C) No.6468/20 07 were disposed of by the impugned order dated 9.4.2009. Aggrieved by the said order insofar as WP(C) No.6468/2007 is concerned the present appeal has been fil ed. 4. The common case of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge, including the present appellant-writ petitioner, was that no notice was issued or opportunity was afforded prior to the order dated 8.10.2007. It was also cont ended that the order dated 2.8.97 passed in C.R. No.5216/1996 was challenged in an appeal i.e. W.A. No.500 of 1997 which was disposed of on 12.5.2000 with certa in directions, which, according to the petitioners, had effaced the order dated 2.8.97 passed in C.R. No.5216/1996 and other connected cases. That apart, accord ing to the petitioners, the State Government having taken a decision to regulari ze 3511 irregularly appointed teachers on the basis of the Cabinet decision date d 12.2.2000, which decision was circulated by the Director’s letter dated 22.2.2 005, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of regularization. In fact , according to the petitioners, including the present appellant, the writ petiti ons filed by them stood withdrawn on account of the aforesaid decision for regul arization. 5. The Director of Secondary Education had filed several affidavits in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. According to the Director the order dated 2.8.97 passed in C.R. No.5216/96 was implemented by the State by the orde r dated 28.12.98. The revelations made in the course of the enquires held in the process of implementation of the aforesaid order had also been indicated in the affidavits filed by the Director. Persons who were outside the select list or w hose merit position did not justify appointment but were still appointed were id entified and persons who were entitled to be appointed in their places were also identified. Thereafter by the order dated 28.12.98 the directions of the Court were implemented by terminating the appointment of all disentitled persons and b y conferring appointment to persons entitled. Insofar as the requirement of furt her notice prior to the impugned termination order dated 8.10.2007 is concerned it was the stand of the Director that the reasons for termination made by the or der dated 8.10.2007 are the same as mentioned in the earlier show cause notice d ated 24.7.98 leading to the orders dated 24.12.98 and 25.1.99. In such a situati on, coupled with the fact that adjudication of the writ petitions challenging th e termination order dated 24.12.98 and 25.1.99 was not made by this Court, there was no requirement of any further notice or opportunity. Insofar as the proceed ings in Writ Appeal No.500 of 1997 is concerned it was the stand of the Director that pursuant to the said order another exercise was carried out to identify th e posts which were the subject mater of the advertisement dated 3.9.91 and the v erification process had revealed that the appointments which were cancelled were against posts that were covered by the said advertisement. Insofar as the appel lant/writ petitioner is concerned, it was the specific case of the Director befo re the learned Single Judge that the appellant was not a selected candidate. 6. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took note of the resp ective stands of the parties as noticed above and came to the conclusion that th e writ petition did not deserve any order as prayed for. According the same was dismissed. 7. The points for adjudication in the appeal as evident from the pleadings made in the appeal memo and the argument advanced by Sri Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant would be essentially same and similar to those advanced befor e the learned Single Judge. Proceeding on that basis this Court is of the view t hat the first point that would require a determination in this appeal is whether prior to the order dated 8.10.2007 the appellant-writ petitioner was entitled t o any further notice or opportunity? In this regard the relevant facts have alre ady been stated. A reading of the order dated 8.10.2007 would go to show that th e reason for termination of the appellant/writ petitioner is that she was not a selected candidate. This is precisely the ground on which the show cause notice dated 24.7.98 was earlier issued. It is also on the aforesaid ground that the te rmination order dated 25.1.99 was passed in the case of the appellant-writ petit ioner. The writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner challenging the aforesaid termination order dated 25.1.99 i.e. Civil Rule No.804/99 was withdraw n on 14.1.2005. The challenge of the petitioner to the earlier termination order , therefore, remained undetermined by the Court. In a situation where the appell ant-writ petitioner had already been given an opportunity which she had availed of and the validity of the consequential exercise including the resultant termin ation order dated 25.1.99 remained undecided by the Court in the proceeding init iated by the appellant i.e. C.R. No.804/99, there would be no requirement of any further notice. The Court is of the view that in the aforesaid fact a fresh ter mination order was not even required. The principles of natural justice cannot b e extended to unnatural or unreasonable lengths so as to require an opportunity to be given in a situation like the present. 8. The next point that would be required to be decided by us in the present appeal is whether the directions contained in the order dated 12.5.2000 passed in W.A. No.500/97 have been complied with. The said directions are to the follow ing effect. Undisputedly, barring one or two applicants, none were impleaded as parties in any of the writ petitions, nor they were heard. Notices for termination of their services were issued and served upon the applicants in pursuance of the impugne d judgment. Having felt adversely affected by the impugned judgment they preferr ed the appeals. It is only at the appellate stage that they have stated their ca ses in their memorandum of appeal. Such facts need verification and on verificat ion if they are found correct, appropriate orders have accordingly to be passed by the authorities in individual cases regarding the notices of cancellation of appointment served upon them. It has already been indicated above that those who se appointments have been made in pursuance of the orders of the Court or upheld by the Court, their appointments cannot be cancelled so long those judicial ord ers remain operative. The posts which came in to existence after the date of adv ertisement amounting to future vacancies, such appointments would also not be af fected by the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Only those appointments agai nst the vacancies which were included and covered by the advertisement dated 3.9 .1991 would be considered for cancellation, if made against the select list, nam ely, if the appointees were not in the list or their appointments were made igno ring the candidates better in merit in the select list. The official records which were placed before the learned Single Judge in the co urse of the hearing of the writ petitions were examined and thereafter it was re corded by the learned Single Judge that the entire of the exercise required to b e performed in terms of the order dated 12.5.2000 passed in W.A. No.500/1997 was duly carried out in the course of which it was determined that the posts agains t which appointments had been made and were cancelled were within the ambit of t he advertisement dated 3.9.91. The said fact is also self evident from the order dated 24.12.98 passed by the State Government in furtherance of the Court’s ord er dated 2.8.97 passed in Civil Rule No.5216/1996 and other connected cases. 9. It had been argued before the learned Single Judge and the said argument has been reiterated before us that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized in terms of the decision of the Government taken pursuant to the Cabinet decisi on dated 12.2.2000 which decision has been circulated by the Director by his let ter dated 22.2.2005. The decision to regularize was one of irregularly appointed teachers numbering 3511. The said decision was also to the specific effect that illegally appointed teachers including the teachers appointed against non-sanct ioned posts are to be terminated. The petitioner falls in the said category inas much as not being included in any valid select list, her appointment is contrary to Rule 7 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982 . In any event the policy decision by the Government (though it does not apply t o the petitioner) cannot destroy the efficacy of a judicial order i.e. order dat ed 2.8.97 passed in Civil Rule No.5216 of 1996. 10. All the issues arising in the writ appeal having been answered in the ab ove manner we find no justifiable ground to formally admit this appeal to regula r hearing. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and cir cumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.