WP(C) 1965/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA By means of this writ petition the petitioners apart from praying for a direction to the respondents to release their pay and allowances stated to be pa yable from October, 2009, have also prayed for setting aside and quashing of the Annexure-9 and 10 communications dated 02.09.2009 and 29.01.2009 respectively. By the communication dated 02.09.2009 the Directorate of Elementary Education, A ssam, communicated to the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi and Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi that appointment orders in respect of th e incumbents named in the communication which include the petitioners have not b een issued from the Directorate. Accordingly, direction was issued for taking ne cessary action. By the second communication dated 29.10.2009 the Deputy Inspecto r of Schools, Hailakandi, directed the Block Elementary Education Officer to sto p payment of salary to the said incumbents and also directed to submit all the r elevant papers pertaining to their services. According to the petitioners, pursuant to the orders passed by this Cou rt they were all appointed on compassionate ground as LP School Teachers. Such a ppointments were made in the year 2003 and 2004 (Annexure-3 series). According t o the petitioners by the Annexure-2 series orders approval for such appointment was also conveyed. After such appointment of the petitioners they have been continuing in t heir services with all service benefits but now in view of the aforesaid communi cations their salary has been stopped w.e.f. October, 2009. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 the very existence of the appointment orders has been denied. According to the said affidavit, no appointment orders were issued to the petitioners from the Directorate and that the appointment orders are all fake, inasmuch as the signatures appearing therei n are also not of the authorised Officers. The fact of fictitious appointment came to the notice of the authority w hen a complain was lodged by one Sri Satish Sinha, President of an organisation regarding illegal appointment of the petitioner No.6, who according to the said complaint had superceded one Sri Santosh Sinha, whose position was above the sai d petitioner No.6 in the select list. On receipt of the complaint, the matter wa s verified and upon verification of all the relevant documents it was found that the appointment of the petitioners and some others were fictitious inasmuch as , no appointment orders were issued from the Directorate and the signatures appe aring in the appointment orders are all forged. It has further been stated in th e affidavit that the copies of the appointment orders of the writ petitioners ar e not available in the concerned file in which appointment orders had been issue d. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have categorically stated in Para-8 that the appointment letters annexed to the writ petition are all false, inasmuch as, the said appointment orders were never issued from the office of th e Directorate. It has also been stated that the copies of the appointment orders annexed to the writ petition are fake, false and fabricated and that the letter s No.EAA.23/2000/Pt.II/109 dated 15.11.2003 and EAA.23/2000/Pt.-II/110 dated 15/ 11/2003 annexed to the writ petition are not the letters issued from the office of the Directorate. Further, the Government letters approving the appointment of the petitioners are also stated to be fake and not available in the concerned f ile. Mr. U K Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education submits that alread y an FIR has been lodged against the petitioners in the Hailakandi Police Statio n relating to the entire incident and Police has registered the case under Polic e Station Case No.230/2010 under Section 468/420 IPC. The petitioners have filed a reply-affidavit to the aforesaid counter-af fidavit and the same is stated to have been filed on 14.06.2010 with a copy to t he learned Standing Counsel, Education. The said affidavit-in-reply is not in th e file but I have perused the copy furnished to Mr. U K Goswami, learned Standin g Counsel. In the reply affidavit what has been contended is that if the appoint ments are fake, the respondents ought to have ordered for an enquiry. According to the petitioners, their appointments are valid and had the approval of the Gov ernment. When the very basis of the purported appointments made in favour of the petitioners has been denied by the respondents and infact an FIR has been lodged against the petitioners, it is difficult to accept the contentions raised by th e petitioners. If the petitioners were validly appointed, there would have been records in the Office but no records are available pertaining to purported appoi ntment of the petitioners. The respondents have denied the existence of the very documents based on which, the petitioners have stacked their claims. According to the respondents, the documents annexed to the writ petition are all false and forged. In such a situation, there is no question of interference with the afor esaid impugned communications and issuance of any direction for payment of salar y to the petitioners. If the petitioners were not be appointed by issuing any appointment orde rs from the Directorate, they cannot claim continuation in service on the basis of the forged and false documents. Secondly, there is also no need to terminate the services of the petitioners. For all the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitione rs and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.