WP(C) 4156/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTIC B P KATAKEY Heard Mr J Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Choudhury, learned S tanding Counsel for education department, appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, by this petition, has challenged the order dated 5th Feb ruary, 2011 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer(DEEO), Cachar, S ilchar, withdrawing the order of attachment made attaching the Assistant Teacher s to the schools other than the schools in which they were earlier appointed wit h the exception that the single-teacher schools with the only attached teacher w ould not proceed to the original school and rather they would report directly to him explaining the circumstances under which they had been attached. By the sai d order, the Deputy Inspector of Schools(DIS) and the Block Elementary Education Officers (BEEO) were requested to pass the monthly salary bills of the attached teachers so withdrawn from the attachment on working in their original schools only. In the said order, a further exception has been made to the effect that th e physically-disabled teachers and the teachers on genuine ground who had been a ttached in other schools would report directly to the DEEO mentioning the reason s of their willingness to be attached in the schools. The ground on which the said order dated 5th February 2011 passed by Dis trict Elementary Education Officer, Cachar, Silchar, has been put to challenge i s that the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, had never directed the Distr ict Elementary Education Officers to release the teachers who were attached to o ther schools vide order dated 12th November 2010, which is the basis for passing the order dated 5th February 2011, but directed to release those teachers who w ere attached to the offices of the District Elementary Education Officers, Deput y Inspector of Schools and the Block Elementary Education Officers. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the communication dated 12th November 2010 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, as we ll as the impugned order dated 5th February 2011 issued by the District Elementa ry Education Officer, Cachar, Silchar, has submitted that since the Director, by the aforesaid order, never directed the District Elementary Education Officers to release the Assistant Teachers who were attached to other schools, the Distri ct Elementary Education Officer, Cachar could not have passed the order impugned in the present writ proceeding as the petitioner is working at no.1543 Laljar P unjee L. P. School under Katigorah Block Elementary Education in pursuance of t he order of attachment dated 3rd December, 2008 passed by the Deputy Inspector o f Schools, Silchar, attaching him to the said school from no.350 Chandpur Maktab L.P. School. Learned Standing Counsel for the education department, on the other hand , has submitted that it is evident from the communication dated 12th November, 2 010 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, as well as the impugn ed order dated 5th February 2011 passed by the District Elementary Education Of ficer, Cachar, that all the teachers, subject to the exception mentioned in the impugned order dated 5th February 2011, who are attached to other schools and al so to the offices of District Elementary Education Officers, Deputy Inspector of Schools and the Block Elementary Education Officers, were directed to be releas ed and accordingly the impugned order dated 5th February 2011 was passed. It ha s also been submitted that the petitioner having been appointed at no.350 Chandp ur Maktab L.P. School and drawing the salary from that school has to go back to his original school he having not claimed that he comes within the exception as mentioned in the order dated 5th February 2011. It appears from the communication dated 12th November 2010 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, that a direction was issued to release the teachers who are attached to the offices of the District Elementary Educati on Officers, the Deputy Inspector of Schools and Block Elementary Education Offi cers. Such order definitely includes the schools that fall within their respecti ve jurisdiction. The whole purpose of issuance of the direction to release from the attachment is that the students in the schools where Assistant Teachers were initially appointed are not deprived of teaching. The impugned order dated 5th February 2011 makes the said position clear. The petitioner has not claimed that he falls within the categories excepted by the impugned order dated 5th Februar y 2011. It also appears from the order dated 3rd December, 2008 that the petitio ner has been drawing his salary from no.350 Chandpur Maktab L.P. School, though has been discharging his duties at no.1543 Laljar Punji L.P. School and thereby depriving the students of no.350 Chandpur Maktab L.P. School from the benefit of a teacher. That being the position, I do not find any merit in the present writ pet ition to interfere with the impugned order dated 5th February 2011 passed by the District Elementary Education Officer, Cachar at Silchar and hence it is dismis sed. No costs.