WP(C) 2288/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A Matin , Advocate, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. UK Goswami, learned St anding counsel, Education Department, Assam. Prayer made in the instant writ petition is for a direction to the respo ndent authority, to regularise the services of the petitioners as Assistant Teac hers in M.E. Schools of the State. At the very outset, Mr. Choudhury has submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, services of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been regular ised. However, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 have been denied the same benefit. Th erefore, so far, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, no order need be pas sed. The case of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is that they appeared before the Interview Board in response to an advertisement made in the year 1995 and they were duly selected. On the basis of the selection they joined in their respectiv e schools and were adjusted against allotted sanctioned posts. The further case of the petitioners is that as they were selected regularly, they are entitled to be posted against non-plan posts. However, instead of appointing them in the no n-plan posts, they were adjusted against plan posts and accordingly, their salar ies were withheld due to lack of retention although both of them have been disch arging their duties regularly and sincerely from the date of their joining till today. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the Director, Elementary Education, Assam contending inter alia, that services of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have been regularised by way of adjustment in exis tent vacant post as per Monoharan Commission Report (illegal category). However, the names of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were not included in the Monohoran Commissi on Report for which their services could not be regularised. It has further been contended that the petitioners were originally appointed by the Managing Commit tee of the Schools after provincialisation of the Schools. Three petitioners nam ely, Fakrul Islam Laskar, Abdul Razak Barbhuiyan and Abdur Rekib Choudhury were appointed against non-existent posts while the other petitioners namely, Tayabur Rahman Choudhury was working as honorary teacher and therefore not entitled for regularisation of service. In the aforesaid affidavit, it has been further contended at paragraph 4 as follows: 4. That the deponent begs to state that as per Records, the Govt. of As sam, Education Department had passed a speaking order vide under Memo No. A(I)E. 392/2001/84-A dated 24.06.2003, wherein D.E.E.O, Hailakandi was asked to take im mediate steps to regularize the 4 petitioners by way of adjustment against the e xisting posts. But thereafter, the Govt. of Assam again issued a speaking order on the same matter vide order under memo No.ELC/WP(C)22/2004/145 dated 07.04.200 4 wherein earlier Govt. order issued vide memo No.A(I)E.392/2001/84-A dated 24.0 6.2003 was cancelled stating that the claim of all petitioners stands rejected o n the ground that they had been appointed by the School Managing Committee after provincialisation of the School. Mr. Goswami has submitted that the aforesaid order dated 07.04.2004 is n ot under challenge. In view of such a situation, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.