had been appointed by the Managing Committees of their school after the provincialisation thereof. Referring to the letter dated 02.03.2007 and 07.06.2007 of the concerned authorities of the Education Department of the State, the answering respondents contended against any right of the petitioners (except the petitioner Nos. 9 and 10) to claim regularization of their services having regard to the manner of their initial appointment. According to the respondents, the order dated 26.06.07 issued by the Director of Education, BTC in the facts and circumstances is untenable in law and thus had been rightly cancelled by the impugned letter dated 02.07.2007 and the order dated 03.07.2007. 7. In his additional affidavit, the respondent No. 4 while reaffirming the above stand has referred to the order dated 29.11.2010 of the Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar in endorsement thereof with a direction to the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar to cause steps to be taken to fill up the existing vacancies in accordance with the extent rules and procedure. Reference has also been made in his additional counter to the decision rendered by this Court in Abdul Bari (MD.) Vs. State of Assam & Ors. : 1999 (3) GLT 31 and Jahangir Alam & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. : 2003 (3) GLT 544. That the educational policy relied upon by the petitioners had been cancelled in terms of the order No. BTC/Edn. (E1). 63/04/42 dated 12.11.2004 of the Joint Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar has also been asserted. 8. Mr. Atia has urged that the petitioners having been appointed following a selection in terms of the educational policy in force at all relevant times, they were entitled in law for regularization of their services as per the notification dated 21.06.2010 as well as the orders dated 29.11.2002 and 13.12.2002 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 542/ 2002 and Misc Case No. 1689/2002 respectively. The learned counsel insisted that the Finance Department of the State having on a threadbare scrutiny of all relevant aspects accorded sanction to the regularization of the services of the petitioners against the posts held by them, the impugned orders are patently illegal and are liable to be interfered with. According to Mr. Atia, the BTC having consciously regularized the services of the petitioners vide order dated 26.06.2007 of the Director of Education, BTC, it is estopped in law to resile from their orientation and on that count as well, the impugned decision is liable to be adjudged illegal, discriminatory and null and void. In support of his argument, Mr. Atia placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in U. P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey & Ors. rendered in Civil Appeal No. 3765 of 2001. 9. While, the learned Standing counsel, Finance Department affirmed the approval for the regularization of the services of the petitioners by his department, the learned Standing counsel, BTC adhered to the pleaded contention of this respondent. Reiterating that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners having been appointed as honorary teachers by the Managing Committees of their respective schools after provincialization thereof, they have no right in law to claim regularization of their services, the decisions of this Court rendered in Abdul Bari (supra) and Jahangir Alam & Ors. (supra) were pressed into service. 10. The pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced have received the due consideration of this Court That the petitioners (except the petitioner Nos. 9 and 10) had