WA 328/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE PK SAIKIA The order under challenge, in the present appeal, was passed, on 25-04-2 011, in WP(C) No. 1506 of 2010, dismissing the writ petition. Aggrieved by the d ismissal of his petition, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal. We have heard Mr. D Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, and M r. Khound, learned Standing Counsel, BTC. Heard also Mr. Sisty, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, and Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finan ce Department. The case with which the appellant came to this Court by way of an applic ation, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was that the writ pe titioner (i.e. the appellant herein) was appointed, as an Assistant Teacher, in Murkuchipara No. 2 LP School, in terms of the resolution, adopted on 17-03-1986, by the Managing Committee thereof and since then, he had been working continuou sly as an honorary teacher, but his service had not been provincialised despite repeated requests and representations made to the respondents concerned. What, now, needs to be noted is that the said school was provincialised on 05-09 -1975, that is, long before the appellant was appointed as an honorary teacher. After provincialisation of the school, in question, no appointment of any person could have been made, by the Managing Committee of the said school without appr oval of the authority concerned, as regular teacher nor could, under the law, ap pointment of an honorary teacher put any obligation on the State to regularize t he service of the petitioner as a regular teacher. Thus, the petitioner was appo inted as honorary teacher by the Managing Committee of the school concerned and has remained as honorary teacher with the liability of the school Managing Commi ttee to pay his salary and allowances, if any, and the State, in consequence of such action of the Managing Committee, ought not to be saddled with the liabilit y to regularize the appointment of the petitioner merely because of his length o f service and pay to him the pay scale of a regular teacher. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had been, in the employment of the said school, for more than 10 years. However, such employment could not have legalized the illega l appointment of the petitioner as a regular teacher. This apart, the petitioner was, admittedly, not appointed following any selection process. The appointment of the petitioner was, thus, wholly arbitrary by resorting to ’pick and choose’ method. Such an appointment did not vest, in the writ petitioner, any right to claim regularization of his service. The petitioner, however, heavily relies on the order, dated 10-01-1997, passed in Civil Rule No. 512 of 1997. The relevant part of the order is reproduced below: In this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he is working as an honor ary teacher in Murkuchipara No. 2 LP School since 21-03-1986. Learned Counsel fo r the petitioner Mr. Choudhury has drawn my attention to the communication issue d by the Block Elementary Education Officer. The Barama to the D.I. of Schools v ide letter No. 9035, dated 14-02-96 for creation of one additional post of Assis tant teacher for Murkuchipara No. 2 LP School. In the said communication, it has been mentioned that the Managing Committee of the School has appointed Sri Atul Ch. Haloi as 2nd Assistant Teacher (3rd post, honorary) according to its resolu tion No. 2 resolved unanimously on 15-03-1986. Mr. Choudhury also drawn my attention to the directions issued by this C ourt in Civil Rule Nos. 1637, 1638, 1747, 1947, 1946 and 1989 regarding regulari zation of service of LP School teachers who has completed 10 years of honorary t eachers. Considering the facts and situation and upon hearing the parties the res pondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to enquire into the matter and on enquiry if i t is found that the petitioner in fact is working as such for last for 10 years, steps shall be taken to regularize the service of the petitioner within a perio d of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. While considering the directions given by the Court, on 10-01-1997, in C ivil Rule No. 512 of 1997, it needs to be noted that when the Court had directed an inquiry to be made and to take step to regularize the service of the petitio ner if he had been working for the last 10 years, it goes without saying, and mu st be treated as implicit in the said order, that the order was to be read as a direction to regularize the petitioner’s service provided he had continuously se rved the school on being appointed in terms of the constitutional guarantees pro vided to every citizen, who seeks employment. No public employment can be made w ithout giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to participate in the selec tion process. Coupled with the above and as already indicated above, on provincialisat ion of the school, the Managing Committee of the school had lost its power to ap point any staff, teaching or non-teaching, and if any staff were to be appointed , the Managing Committee ought to have obtained, in terms of the provisions of t he Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rule, 1977, requisite permissi on from the authority concerned. No such permission/approval was, admittedly, ob tained by the Managing Committee concerned. Situated thus, there can be no denial of the fact that the petitioner’s appointment was wholly illegal and arbitrary. In such circumstances, merely beca use of the length of period for which the petitioner had been working as Assista nt Teacher, the petitioner cannot be held to have acquired any right to demand t hat his service be regularized by the State Government nor can the State Governm ent be directed to treat him at par with other regularly appointed teachers. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we find that this appeal is wholly without merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.