WP(C) 4148/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY Heard Mr. P Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U K Goswami, lea rned standing counsel, Education Department. The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 1.3.91 as 3rd Asstt. Te acher in the Laltapu Prathamik Vidyalaya in pursuance of resolution no.1 dated 2 5.2.2001 passed by the School Managing Committee. According to the petitioner h e was appointed prior to provincialisaiton of the school. As alleged, some simi larly situated teachers have been regularized sidelining his case .Hence, he is a dropped teacher. Earlier a writ petition being Civil Rule No.1571/1998 was filed claiming provin cialisation of the services of the dropped teachers. The said writ petition was decided by judgment and order dated 1.9.2003 along with a batch of other writ pe titions. The judgment so delivered is reported in 2008(3) GLT 229 (Jiban Chandr a Deka and ors -vs- State of Assam & ors). Operative part of the said judgment i s reproduced below: The policy document dated 13.1.2003 is not under challenge in any of the cases . Learned counsels for the petitioners have also not raised any question with re gard to the validity of any of the norms prescribed by the aforesaid policy docu ment, in course of the oral arguments advanced. However, Mr. D.Mazumdar, learne d counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)No.5627/2000, in course of his arguments, has contended that, perhaps, some suitable adjustment in condition Nos. 1 and 2 of the policy document would make the policy introduced more broad based and fai r, a position agreed to by Mr. S N Sarma, learned senior Standing Counsel appear ing for the Respondents, Condition No.1, the Respondents agree, may be read for covering the cases of all dropped teachers in service as on the date of provi ncialisation of the concerned school, whereas, the requirement of approval of th e appointments made by the Managing Committee as embodied in condition No.2, as agreed by the respondents, could be reflected by any document acknowledging rend ering of service by dropped teachers . Furthermore, in the affidavit filed, the State while stating that the regularizations when made, would be prospective, h as agreed to give the benefit of previous service rendered for the purpose of pe nsion and retirement dues. Since the policy has been framed to deal with the case of the dropped teachers , it is axiomatic that all such cases be dealt with in terms of the policy ado pted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petition er is squarely covered by the common order rendered by this court in the case of Sri Luleswar Hazarika -vs- the State of Assam and ors in WP(C)No.4626/2007; S ri Maloti Borah -vs- State of Assam & ors in WP(C)No.5413/06; Smti Ranu Gohain - vs State of Assam & ors in WP(C)No.4315/09 and Smti Kalpan Chetia -Vs state of Assam & ors in WP(C)No.4353/2009 passed on 16.11.2010. In view of the above, this case stands disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the order passed in the aforesa id cases, if his case comes under the purview of the decisions rendered in the aforesaid cases. Besides this, the case of the petitioner may be considered in accordance with the norms, criteria and eligibility condition prescribed by the policy document dated 13.1.2003 subject to modification in condition Nos. 1 and 2, as stated above. Further in the aforesaid common order this court specifically directs th at (1) The candidates who did not respond to the advertisement in question issue d by the High Power Committee cannot now claim that their cases have been ignore d or not responded to by the High Power Committee. There cannot be any endless e xercise. The High Power Committee has already carried out the same. (ii) So far as the case which have been rejected by the High Power Commi ttee, the candidates involved in the said cases are entitled to know the reason for such rejection. Although such reasons may be the report of the High Power Co mmittee it will be appropriate for the Govt. to furnish and provide reasons to the individual candidates. Necessary communication in this regard shall be made to the candidates whose plea of being dropped teachers has been rejected. iii) Inspite of the exercise that has been carried out by the High Power Commtitee, if there are still any pending case of dropped teacher of LP/ME Scho ols with which the present proceeding is concerned, the High Power Committee sh all carry out necessary exercise in terms of the said notification date 16.7.201 0. iv) The Government in the Education Department shall take necessary follow up ac tion in terms of the list of dropped teachers that has already been published in the newspaper on 1.3.2008. The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of six m onths from today. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition st ands disposed of.