WP(C) 5331/2009 BEFORE HON\BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL Heard Mrs. N Saikia, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mrs. M. Bordolo i, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ( BTC) . Also heard Mr. AK Du tta, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. This writ petition is directed against the Order dated 23.06.2009 passed by the Director of Education, Bodoland Territorial council, Kokrajhar, whereby the writ petitioner has been terminated from service on the ground that his appointment was made without any advertisement; approval of State Level Empowered committee and due to non-availability of the records of selection process. The petitioner’s case is that he was regularly appointed in the year 1998 agains t the sanctioned post and thereafter his appointment was confirmed vide Order da ted 31.12.2008. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that from day one, the writ petitioner was getting regular pay scale of Assistant Teacher in M.E. School and as such, the termination order is unsustainable on facts and in law. On the other hand, Mrs. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that since the appointment of the writ petitioner was illegal, all s ubsequent orders like payment of salary, confirmation of service etc are non-est in law and as such there is no infirmity in the impugned termination order. In support of this submission, Mrs. Bordoloi cited a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Co urt in State of Bihar-Vs- Upendra Narayan Singh; reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 and Gauhati High Court judgment given in Jagannath Kumar Dey -Vs- State of Assam; r eported in 2010 (3) GLT 632. From the documents annexed with the writ petition, it is apparent that writ pe titioner was appointed in M.E. School by the Director of Elementary Education Of ficer, Nalbari who is the appointing authority as per Rule 3 of the Assam Elemen tary Education (Provincialised ) Rules , 1977. Besides this, the appointment wa s made against substantive vacancy and against a regular pay scale. The appointm ent order was issued on 27.10.1998 and the petitioner joined his service on 30.1 0.1998. Initially, the appointment of the writ petitioner was against Planned Post but it was brought under Non-Planned Post vide order dated 17.08.2000. N ot only that, after 10 years of continuous service, the petitioner was confirmed in his service by the same authority vide order dated 31.10.2008 ( Annexure-4). After more than 11 years of service, the respondent No. 3 has terminated the ser vice of the writ petitioner on vague grounds. Apparently, in the impugned order, it has not been stated that sanction number of the post mentioned in the origin al appointment order is a fake one nor it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. The authority cited on behalf of the respondents are distinguishable on facts. T he judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ( Supra) relates to termination of serv ice of adhoc employees whereas the writ petitioner herein was appointed by a com petent authority against substantive vacancy. Similarly, in the case of Jagannat h Kumar Dey, the petitioners were appointed against fixed pay and their services were terminated within a period of less than 10 years. It is also the admitted position that the impugned termination order has been issued without any show c ause notice and as such, the order is also in violation of the principles of nat ural justice. At this stage of argument, Mrs. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the BTC submitted that the writ petitioner was appointed against the Operation Black Board sche me and as such, his termination cannot be faulted. However, it is made clear that the w rit petitioner’s service has not been terminated on this ground. Besides this, t he learned counsel admitted the fact that now the Govt of Assam has regularised the services of the teachers appointed under the aforesaid scheme. In the result, I find sufficient force in the petition. Accordingly, the writ pe tition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 23.06.2009 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to re-instate the writ petitioner in service forthw ith. However, it is made clear that he will get pay and allowances on and from t he date of his resumption of duty. In other words, he will not be entitled to pa y for the period of termination. However, the said period shall be taken into co nsideration for other service benefits.