WP(C) 20/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. P. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also he ard Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department. 2. The 102 petitioners herein seek a direction for their reinstatement in s ervice as Assistant Teachers of different L.P. Schools of Nalbari District. They contend that they were appointed in March 2001 by the then Deputy Inspector (D. I.) of Schools, Nalbari, Shir G.N. Haloi and since they were terminated from ser vice without affording any hearing, they should be reinstated and allowed to con tinue in their posts. 3.1 However Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel submits that these appoin tments were illegally made by Shri G.N. Haloi, D.I. of Schools, Nalbari in non-e xistent posts. The Standing Counsel points out that at the relevant time only 26 6 posts of L.P. Teachers were allotted to schools in Nalbari District whereas th e D.I. of Schools, Nalbari made as many as 4510 appointments against the 266 pos ts sanctioned under his jurisdiction. 3.2 It is further submitted that immediately after learning of the illegal a ppointments in the year 2001 itself, they were cancelled and in pursuant to the challenges made by the aggrieved appointees, the Court had ordered an enquiry in to the matter. 3.3 The Counsel points out that the necessary facts in this regard was earli er recorded by the Court in WP(C) NO. 3832/2006 which also was a case of termina ted teachers from Nalbari District. Upon consideration of the enquiry report whi ch revealed that genuine appointments can’t be segregated from the illegal ones, this Court had closed several such writ petitions of excess appointments of tea chers in Nalbari district, without interfering with the cancellation of those il legal appointments. 4. The learned Standing Counsel has produced the order dated 21.11.2008 in WP(C) 4560/2008 (Pabitra Barman vs. State of Assam) and the order dated 4.10.20 10 in WP(C) 5541/2010 (Pratap Kalita vs. State of Assam) to contend that since the petitioners are in the same footings as the petitioners in the other 2 cases , this writ petition should be similarly dismissed. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the order passed in Pabitra Barman (supra) and Pratap Kalita (supra) and I am of the con sidered opinion that the petitioners in this case are similarly placed and accor dingly this writ petition should also be dismissed like the other 2 cases. 6. Having reached the above conclusion, this writ petition is held to be wi thout any merit and accordingly is dismissed. A copy of the order dated 21.11.20 08 in in WP(C) 4560/2008 and the order dated 4.10.2010 in WP(C) 5541/2010, shall be placed in this case records.