WP(C) 3575/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, lear ned Standing counsel, Education Department. The petitioner is before this Court with the grievance that her salary h as not been paid from her date of joining w.e.f. 08.12.1999 and is in arrears. H er discontentment also extends to non-payment of her current salary. Shortly put the case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a St ipendary teacher on the above date and was posted at Maligaon Central Primary Sc hool vice Debika Dutta discharged therefrom. Though the letter of appointment da ted 25.11.1999 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Salmara, Abhayap uri, mentioned that she would initially receive a monthly stipend of Rs.900/- pe r month and would be deputed to undergo Basic Training for a period of 1(one) ye ar on the successful completion thereof, she would be accorded the time scale of pay, she has not been sent for such training. The stipend at the above rate als o has not been paid to her. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the above fact has urged that the documents annexed to the petition would testify that the resp ondents have acknowledged the petitioners appointment and have recommended for t he payment of her salary, and therefore the denial thereof is wholly unjustified calling for immediate intervention of this Court in the interest of justice. With regard to the delay, the learned counsel has contended that as the petitioner’s bonafide expectation for succour was founded on the official corres pondences on the issue she did not consider it necessary to approach this Court earlier. The learned counsel has further maintained that as non payment of the pe titioner’s salary has given rise to a continuing wrong, the question of delay do es not arise. Mr. Mishra, learned Standing counsel, Education Department in reply has argued that that petitioner’s appointment was not preceded by any selection proc ess, and therefore, her continuance in service per se is untenable in law. In th at view of the matter Mr. Mishra pleaded that her claim for salary is misconceiv ed. The pleaded facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition have been duly considered. To start with, the petitioner nowhere has stated that she has been selected for appointment and that the order dated 25.11.1999 is ba sed on any such process. The appointment order as well demonstrates a very tempo rary arrangement. In terms of the said order the petitioner’s appointment is tem porary and subject to discharge without any notice or assigning any reason. It d oes not also refer to any selection process on the basis of which she has been a ppointed. Though the official communications appended to the petition relate to the issue of non payment of the petitioner’s salary, the same per se in the abse nce of any other demonstrable material on record, in the opinion of this Court d o not establish that her appointment has been made by following the process reco gnized by law. The contention that the delay had occurred as the petitioner was awaiting a positive outcome of the official exchanges also does not appeal to th is Court. The petitioner according to her version is without any stipend from the year 1999. After a lapse of nine years, this Court is not inclined to entertain her prayer for arrear salary. On a query made by this Court to ascertain as to w hether the petitioner has furnished any proof of her continuance in service as o n date, the learned counsel replied that it is apparent from the official commun ications appended to the writ petition as determined hereinabove. The annexures to the writ petition though disclose an exercise by the departmental authorities on the issue of payment of the petitioner’s salary the same ipso facto do not e ither prove that her appointment is valid or her continuance in service as on da te. The petition in the above factual premise is not entertained and is rejected . No costs.