WP(C) 6122/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as wel l as Mr. MR Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay him salary for the period from 8.12.1999 to 30.5.2003. The petitioner was first appointed by Annexure-1 order dated 4.1 2.1999 as Assistant Teacher in the particular school. However, in the appointmen t order itself it was stated thus: The incumbent will draw the salary from the post of Vice Princi pal temporarily when the Vice Principal post will be filled up then the incumben t will be adjusted against the resultant vacancy or anywhere in the District whe n the post is vacant. It is not understood as to how the petitioner could be appointed in the above manner against a higher post of Vice Principal. In view of such a position, his salary could not be released and the jurisdictional Treasury Offic er objected to the salary bill and consequently the petitioner could not be paid salary. Correspondences followed thereafter and eventually the petitione r approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. No. 6855/2001, which was disposed of by order dated 27.9.2001. It was provided that the Director of Secondary Educat ion, Assam would make an enquiry to find out as to whether the petitioner was ap pointed validly and had been serving the school. Depending upon outcome of the e nquiry, the petitioner was to be paid his salary. After the aforesaid order also certain correspondence followed a nd thereafter finally by Annexure-12 order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the Commiss ioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Elementary & Secondary Depar tment rejected the prayer of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period from 8.12.1999 to 31.5.2003. Be it stated here that prior to this order, the In spector of Schools, Golaghat District Circle by his order dated 31.3.2003 adjust ed the service of the petitioner against the vacant post and since then the peti tioner has been receiving his salary. Now by Annexure-12 order dated 6.10.2010 referred to above, it h as been categorically stated that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teac her without observing the rules of recruitment and against the post of Vice Prin cipal or in other words against a none existing post. If the petitioner was sele cted for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, he could not have appoint ed against the post of Vice Principal, which admittedly is a higher post. In the writ petition, no particulars have been disclosed regarding selection of the pe titioner for appointment as Assistant Teacher. The fact that petitioner’s servic e had been adjusted against the vacant post in 2003 will go to show that the ini tial appointment was dehorse the recruitment rules. Apart from the aforesaid Annexure-12 order dated 6.10.2010, by w hich the prayer of the petitioner for payment of arrear salary with effect from 8.12.1999 to 31.5.2003 has been rejected is not under challenge. Without any cha llenge to the said order, the prayer to this writ petition for payment of salary for the said period cannot be granted. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the wr it petition and accordingly it is dismissed.