WP(C) 5986/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. M.R. Pat hak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the respondents. Some persons came, by way of two writ petitions, made under Article 226 of the C onstitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No.5730/2001 and 7207/2001, which were disposed of, on 12.10.2001, with direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the writ petitioners that though they had been working as teachers in L.P. Schools, their monthly stipends have not been paid, provided that they a re found eligible to receive such payment. Having examined the case of the petitioners, respondent No.1, namely, Commission er & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department (Elementary), Dispur, Guwahati, passed an order, on 30.10.2010, which is self-explicit, and is, there fore, reproduced below: It appears from the above-mentioned report that an advertisement was made in 19 96 by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, for filling up of vacant post s of LP & Middle School teachers throughout the State including Hailakandi distr ict and accordingly interview was held in the year 1997 but no select list/panel list was prepared and published. The petitioners of WP(C) No.7207/2001 Smt. Lutfa Begum Choudhury & others and th e petitioners of WP(C) No.5730/2001 (Shri Kamrul Islam Laskar & 26 others) were appointed by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi in the year 1999. There is no record available in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi, regarding appointment of the petitioners as the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi, was gutted by fire on 18.09.99 and all record s and other properties of the D.I. office were destroyed. It reveals from the re port of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi, that the posts against which th e petitioners were appointed have no existence as these vacancies have already b een filled up by way of regularization/adjustment/fresh appointment against SC/S T backlog and compassionate appointments. The petitioners have claimed for salar ies from the date of their joining. As such, it appears that the appointments of the petitioners were made without o bserving any rules as prescribed in the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialis ation) Service Rules, 1977, and that too against non-existent posts. Order: In view of the above facts and after due consideration of the petitioner’s griev ances, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, is hereby directed to take n ecessary action for termination of the petitioners of WP(C) No.7207/2001 and 573 0/2001 by issuing show cause notices. This has been issued in compliance of order, dated 12.10.2001, passed in WP(C) N o.7207/2001 and order dated 17.08.2001 passed in WP(C) No.5730/2001. Considering the fact that respondent No.1 has clearly stated that there is no re cord of selection and appointment of the petitioners, the direction, which has b een given by him to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, to terminate th e services of the petitioners by issuing to them notices to show cause, cannot b e said to be illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable inasmuch as in the face of compl ete absence of materials indicating that the petitioners were selected in a regu lar process of selection and appointed by any competent authority, respondent No .1 was not incorrect in directing notices to be issued to the petitioners to sh ow cause as to why their services shall not be terminated. By filing these writ petitions, it is the order, dated 30.10.2010, which the petitioners have put to challenge. This Court finds no infirmity, legal or factual, in the impugned orde r inasmuch as the petitioners, on being served with notices of show cause, would be able to reply as to why their services shall not be terminated and, in suppo rt of their selection and appointment, they would be able to lay, before the res pondent/authority, all such materials as they wish to produce or rely upon. Situated thus, this Court does not find that the petitioners have been able to m ake out any case warranting this Court’s interference with the impugned order in exercise of its powers under Article 226. In view of the above, these writ petitions are not admitted and shall accordingl y stand dismissed. No costs. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners’ services shall not be terminate d without giving them show cause notices as have been directed by the impugned o rder. Whatever decision(s) is/are reached by the respondent No.2, namely, Director of Elementary Education, Assam, upon giving notices to show cause, as directed here inabove, and enquiries, if any, the same shall be communicated, in writing, to t he petitioners. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision(s), which may be taken, or by the order(s), which may be passed by the respondent No.2, namely , Director of Elementary Education, Assam, they shall remain at liberty to take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible.