WP(C) 4814/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) With the help of this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Const itution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the Office Memorandum, dat ed 02.09.2011, whereby the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam , Education (Secondary) Department, has conveyed the Government’s direction to a ll the authorities concerned to withdraw orders of attachment of teachers from o ne school to another. The petitioner has also put to challenge the order, dated 08.09.2011, issued by the respondent No. 2, namely, Director of Secondary Educa tion, Assam, too, whereby, acting upon the Office Memorandum, dated 02.09.2011, the petitioner’s attachment to Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati, has been withdrawn and the petitioner has been directed to re join her parent School, namely, Bihuguri High Secondary School, district Sonitpu r. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner reads as under: (i) The petitioner came to be appointed as a Subject Teacher/Post Gradua te Teacher (Commerce) and posted at Bihuguri Higher Secondary School, district S onitpur, in the year 2007. On the ground that she has two minor children and th at her husband is a Government servant posted at Guwahati, the petitioner made s everal representations to the respondents/authorities concerned seeking transfer from Sonitpur to Guwahati. As her representations did not yield any favourable result, she filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) 6312/2006. Followi ng the writ petition, respondent No. 2, namely, Director of Secondary Education, Assam, sent, vide his letter, dated 02.01.2009, a proposal to the Government fo r attachment of the petitioner to Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purp ose School, Guwahati. By a letter, dated 07.08.2009, the Government approved th e proposal for the petitioner’s attachment as had been sought for by the respond ent No. 2. An order, 07.08.2009, was accordingly issued by the Government conve ying the Government’s approval to the proposal for the petitioner’s attachment t o the Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati, tempor arily, on condition that if any vacancy occurred in the subject, which the petit ioner had been teaching, namely, Commerce, in any school at greater Guwahati, sh e would be accommodated there. By the order, dated 07.08.2009, aforementioned, it was, however, directed that during the period of her attachment to the Arya V idyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati, the petitioner wou ld draw her monthly salary from Bihaguri Higher Secondary School, Sonitpur, whic h is her parent school. As per her attachment order, the petitioner, immediatel y, joined as Subject Teacher/Post Graduate Teacher (Commerce) in Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati. (ii) As the post of Subject Teacher (Commerce), in Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati, had been lying vacant since Janua ry, 23.01.2009, due to the death of its incumbent, namely, Dulan Chandra Bordolo i, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 2 herein, on 26.08 .2009, seeking to be accommodated in the said post. However, her said represen tation die not evoke any favourable response. (iii) On the ground that since a post of Subject Teacher (Commerce) had been l ying vacant in Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahat i, and yet she has not been accommodated in the said post, the petitioner, once again, filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) 355/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 24.01.2011, with direction to the respo ndents/authorities concerned to look into the grievances of the petitioner and d o the needful in accordance with law making it clear, however, that if the post of Subject Teacher (Commerce), which had been lying vacant in the Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati, was a post meant for reser ved quota, then, the respondents/authorities concerned would be free to take nec essary decision. Thereafter, the letter, dated 02.09.2011, conveying the Govern ment’s policy decision, with regard to attachment of teachers, mentioned above, was issued, whereby the authorities concerned were directed to withdraw the orde rs of attachment of teachers from one school to another. Acting upon this Gover nment policy, the impugned order, dated 08.09.2011, has been issued by the respo ndent No. 2 herein, namely, Director of Secondary Education, Assam, withdrawing the petitioner’s attachment from the Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi P urpose School, Guwahati, and posting her back to Bihaguri Higher Secondary Schoo l, Sonitpur, which is the school from where the petitioner has been receiving he r salary even while working, at Guwahati, as indicated hereinbefore. (iv) Aggrieved by the order, dated 08.09.2011, whereby the petitioner’s attac hment to Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati, has been withdrawn and she has been posted back to Bihaguri Higher Secondary School , Sonitpur, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. I have heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and M r. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. A. D. Choudhury, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, Government of Assam, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 4. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that t he State respondents have filed a counter-affidavit, wherein they have explained the reasons for withdrawing the petitioner’s attachment from Arya Vidyapeth Hig her Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati, the explanation being, in brie f, thus: The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter refer red to as the ’2003 Rules’), which govern the service conditions of the teachers working in provincialised High and Higher Secondary schools in Assam, has no pr ovision as regards attachment of teachers from one school to another and, theref ore, the action, on the part of the authorities concerned, in issuing an attachm ent order is without any support of law and that, in order to improve the academ ic environment of educational institutions in the State of Assam, adequate numbe r of teaching staff is required for the purpose of maintaining the pupil-teacher ratio. In the recent past, a large number of additional Teachers were appointe d, on contract basis, for High Schools in order to meet the requirement of teach ers. In the process of maintaining pupil-teacher ratio, the State Government b ecame conscious of the fact that some teachers had been working on attachment at one place against their original place of posting at another place or even in a nother district, which was injurious to the academic atmosphere inasmuch as such attachment orders create surplus manpower in one schools; whereas, in some othe r school, particularly, in the schools, located in remote/under-developed areas, the students had to suffer due to insufficient number of teachers. It was also discovered by the Government that most of the attachment orders had been issued at the behest and personal interest of the person concerned. The Government, t herefore, took a conscious decision and issued Office Memorandum, dated 02.09.20 11, making it clear that, henceforth, no attachment would be made by any authori ty and that all the attachment orders, issued earlier, would be cancelled and th e incumbent concerned would be sent back to their respective original places of posting from where they had been drawing their respective salary. In terms of the Government policy decision, so conveyed by the Office Memorandum, dated 02.0 9.2011, respondent No. 2, namely, Director, Secondary Education, Assam, has issu ed the impugned order, dated 08.09.2011, withdrawing the petitioner’s attachment from the Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati, an d posting her back to Bihaguri Higher Secondary School, Sonitpur. In this proc ess, as many as 17 orders of attachment, including that of the petitioner, have been withdrawn and the persons concerned, including the petitioner, have been se nt back to their respective original schools to which they were appointed and fr om where they had been drawing their respective salary. 5. Coupled with the above, it is the further case of the State respondents that the post, in question, which the petitioner was attached to, is a post mean t for reserved quota and, hence, the petitioner cannot be absorbed and/or accomm odated in the said post. 6. While considering the rival submissions, it may be noted that the petiti oner has not challenged the policy decision of the Government, as contained in t he Office Memorandum, dated 02.09.2011. When the policy decision of the Governm ent is not under challenge and could not have been challenged, because of the ra tionality behind the policy decision, the consequences flowing from there, which led to the withdrawal of the petitioner’s attachment from the Arya Vidyapeth Hi gher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati, and sending her back to Bihag uri Higher Secondary School, Sonitpur, could not have been questioned, and has n ot been really questioned in the present case. 7. What has been pointed out, on behalf of the petitioner, is that it had b een promised in the order of her attachment, dated 07.08.2009, that the petition er would be adjusted if any vacancy arose in future and that as the post of Subj ect-Teacher (Commerce) had been lying vacant in Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati, where she was attached, the petitioner ought to have been adjusted against the said vacant post. 8. Suffice it to point out, with regard to the above, that when the petitio ner’s appointment was at Bihaguri Higher Secondary School, Sonitpur, when she ha s been, till date, drawing her salary from Bihaguri Higher Secondary School, and when there is no provision, under 2003 Rules, for attachment of teacher, the pe titioner could not have been brought to Guwahati on attachment. As far as the p etitioner’s accommodation/absorption in the vacant post of Subject Teacher (Comm erce) in Arya Vidyapeth Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School, Guwahati, is concerned, the same is impermissible in law inasmuch as the respondents have mad e it clear that the said post falls under reserved quota and this aspect had, in deed, been taken into consideration by the High Court, while disposing of the pe titioner’s earlier writ petition [WP(C) 355/2011] by order, dated 24.01.2011, di recting consideration of the petitioner’s grievances by the respondents provided that the post, in question, does not fall under reserved category. 9. By filing additional affidavit, the petitioner has, however, challenged the State respondents’ contention that the post, in question, falls within the reserved quota. While considering the petitioner’s challenge to the correctness of the assertion of the State respondents with regard to the status of the said post, it needs to be made clear that if the petitioner disputes the fact that t he said post falls under reserved quota, then, the remedy for settlement of such a dispute lies in a civil suit and not by way of a writ petition, because deter mination of such a disputed question of fact would require holding of roving enq uiry by taking evidence, which cannot and ought not to be done in the fact situa tion of the present case. 10. Above all, there is no provision, in 2003 Rules, for either attachment o f teachers from one school to another or for absorption of a teacher into a post in one school by bringing him/her, on attachment, from another school. Viewed from this angle too, the petitioner has no case and the withdrawal of the order of her attachment being based on the policy decision of the Government, the same cannot, in the absence of any specific material, be said to be mala fide. This Court is, therefore, of the firm view that the present writ petition is wholly without merit and the same must fail. 11. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition fa ils and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 12. No order as to costs.