WP(C) 976/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Government o f Assam. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessentia l to issue notice. Shortly put the relevant facts for disposal of the instant petit ion are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher at 864 Kanakpur L.P. School (hereafter for short referred to as the School) as Assistan t Teacher, as a stop gap arrangement subject to the approval of the concerned Ad visory Board. The respondent No. 5 who was also appointed on the same arrangemen t as Assistant Teacher at Rabidaspara Harijan M.V. School was terminated as the same was not approved by the Advisory Board. On 9/9/1985, however, the responden t No. 5 replaced the petitioner in her School in terms of the order to that effe ct passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Silchar. According to the petit ioner, the respondent No. 5 has continued as such since then following her ouste r. The petitioner has asserted that not only the termination of her service is i llegal, the continuance of respondent No. 5 in her post is also not tenable more particularly as she (respondent No. 5) has meanwhile been convicted under secti on 471 of the Indian Penal Code in GR Case No. 1800/87. It is her further case t hat the conviction has since been sustained by the higher fora. Being aggrieved by the continuance of the respondent No. 5 inspite of the above, the petitioner meanwhile has submitted representation before the District Elementary Education Officer, Cachar, Silchar, on 22/1/2010 seeking his intervention for redress. She is before this Court as the representation lies unattended till date. Whereas Mr. Choudhury insists that in the accompanying facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for a direction to be acc ommodated in place of the respondent No. 5, Mr. Goswami points out that having r egard to the nature of the initial appointment of the petitioner, she has no rig ht in law to claim such appointment. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of the pleaded averments supported by an affidavit and annexures appende d to the writ petition, it is considered appropriate to close this proceeding wi th a direction to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, to consider and d ispose of the petitioner’s aforementioned representation on merits. Needless to say, as the representation may yield an order likely to visit the respondent No. 5 with adverse consequences, the aforementioned authority, before taking a deci sion on it (representation) would afford an opportunity of hearing to both the p arties. It is made clear that this Court while making this order has not in any way rendered its opinion on the merit of the case and it would be entirely in th e discretion and domain of the departmental authority to take an appropriate dec ision. The exercise as indicated above should be completed within a period of fo ur weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petition stands closed in the above terms. No costs.