WP(C) 3312/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus to the State re spondents to forthwith release her current salary from 1/3/2008 and to consider her case for regularization in terms of the judgment and order dated 1/7/2008 pa ssed in WA 376/2002, State of Assam versus Smti. Nirmala Bora and another. I have heard Mr. M.U.B. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitione r and Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. The petitioner’s case in short is that on completion of a select ion process initiated by an advertisement issued on 28/12/1996 for appointment t o 7500 posts of Assistant Teachers lying vacant in different L.P./M.V./M.E./M.E. Madrassa etc Schools in the State in which she participated, she was eventually appointed in the said capacity in Phallangani Adarsha L.P. School by order date d 26/3/2001 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Golaghat, against a fixed salary of Rs. 1800/- per month under the Operation Black Board scheme. Being aggrieved by the fact that inspite of their selection for appointment on regular basis, t hey had been inducted under a centrally sponsored scheme namely the Operation Bl ack Board Scheme. Persons similarly situated like the petitioner approached this Court with a series of writ petitions the lead case being WP(C) 8764/2001 seeki ng redress. By a common judgment and order dated 8/4/2002 the petitions were all owed and the respondent authorities were directed to regularize their appointmen ts by adjusting/absorbing them against regular sanctioned posts/vacancies of Ass istant Teachers in a phased manner. The Court also directed against termination of their services and also required the State respondents to pay their monthly s alary for the period for which they render their services. The State of Assam went in appeal against the said determination in WA 376/2002. The Division Bench of this Court while entertaining the appeal did not suspend the operation of the decision of the learned Single Judge. In vi ew of the above, the services of the teachers concerned were not terminated. Con sequently the petitioner also continued in service and received her salary upto 28/2/2008. Eventually the writ appeal has been dismissed and the adjudication by the learned Single Judge has been affirmed. The petitioner in this factual prem ise is before this Court praying for the relief referred to hereinabove. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the ple aded facts has urged that an appropriate writ and/or direction be issued to the respondent authorities to immediately release her salary from 1/3/2008 and regul arize her services as required by the verdict of the learned Single Judge, endor sed and affirmed in the aforementioned appeal. The learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, has submitte d that in the backdrop of the litigation referred to in the writ petition, the p rayer is prematured. Upon hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and on a consi deration of the pleaded facts, I am inclined to concur with stand taken on behal f of the State respondents. As admittedly the case of the petitioner is covered by the decisions rendered by this Court on the issues referred to hereinabove, I do not see any reason to accede to the prayer as made in the instant petition. As the petitioner is equally placed with those entitled to the reliefs as would be available to them, in conformance with the earlier adjudication, in absence o f any distinguishable or special feature in her case which is not discernible on the face of the records, no writ and/or direction to deal with her case on indi vidual basis is warranted. Needless to say, if the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the above mentioned decisions of this Court, the State respondents would do the needful to ensure that she is not deprived thereof. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.