V. Dutta Gyani, J.— These bunch of writ petitions and writ appeals relate to appointment., absorption and regularisation of primary school teachers, they have been heard together as they involve a common question of regularisation of service and categorised as such by the Registry. 2. The State of Assam in its endeavour to provide free and complusory education as envisaged by Article 45 and Article 41 of the Constitution established or allowed to be established large number of educational institutions and primary schools and provincialised some of those already existing in its bid to impart and expand free primary education as a part of its planning. But one of the basic objective of planning to make people self-reliant so that they may not look upto the Govt for redressal of all their problems including employment has been eclipse. If these bunch of petitions and many more already disposed of is an indication, it is an undeniable fact that schools for the general public are ill-equipped, ill-managed and ill-staffed to cater to the needs of the large number of people in a democracy where poverty is all perversive. In one hand, there are such schools where regularisation of service is sought by otherwise unemployed youths who are supposed to educate the millions of children of the general public, on the otherhand there are schools managed by monied people who take care of even their dull and dunce children, extremely expensive English medium schools with high cost of private tuition have sprung up and are being run as purely commercial enterprise collecting huge amount of donations and fees, thus catering to the needs of the children of the fortunate few. while the millions are left even without regular staff in the schools. The system as such does not provide any gainful and productive work to every adult or youth. Those who pass out their matriculation or graduation when faced with the hard realities of life and tremendous problem of unemployment, not so much as a matter of love or liking for imparting education, but securing a job they either accept the job of teachers, Lower Division Assistants or Clerks or even Peons on purely temporary ad-hoc basis and continue it as their expected fate. It is not out of volition or liking for teaching as career that they accept the appointments. 3. It is not out of volition or liking for teaching as career that they accept the appointments. 3. Employment is not a guaranteed right under the Constitution, nor is there any provision unlike some other countries providing Unemployment Allowances. With lapse of time, these very teachers. LDAs. Clerks or Peons appointed on purely ad-hoc or temporary basis have approached the Courts for their regularisation in service. There is no dearth of such cases in the law reports, case are decided and disposed of, but the problem continues to stare us. 4. The appointment of teachers in the instant cases are governed by rules, though not statutory. Neverthless, they have been prevailing for long and are being applied and followed whenever such matter arises. A compassionate approach in the matter of regularisation being impermissible under the rules, cannot be adopted in these cases in the name of public interest, keeping in view the grim factual aspects where all norms of fairness have been thrown to the winds. (See State of Orissa vs. Sukanti Mahapatra, AIR 1993 SC 1650 ). But a pragmative approach can well be taken. Now, classifying these bunch of petitions and writ appeals, out of orders passed by the learned Single Judge/Single Bench of this Court, where the State has preferred appeal and in some cases, the writ petitioners have also preferred appeals, there are as may as 11 (eleven) of them. The points for consideration arising in these appeals are basically the same as raised in the civil rules, there is slight variation of facts such as the date of appointments, length of service rendered by a particular teacher. But the claim of entitlement for regularisation of service as teachers, is the common threat which runs through the wharf and whap of all these petitions and appeals, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 5. So far as the civil rules are concerned, they can be conveniently divided into two parts - (1) where the appointment orders were issued in a routine and regular course; and the other part consists of petitions where appointment orders were fraudulently issued/procured or obtained and gross malpractices were committed in the orders of appointment of teachers. Another set of petitions are those where the petitioners are borne on the select list though expired by lapse of time but not implemented by the respondent-authorities. Another set of petitions are those where the petitioners are borne on the select list though expired by lapse of time but not implemented by the respondent-authorities. It may also be noted that in some cases more than one petitioners have joined together although the petition is one, there are more than one petitioners. Similarly, in State appeals there are more than one respondent-teachers. In some of the petitions return/counter-affidavit-in-opposition have been filed by the State while in others the same has not been filed, but all these petitions have been heard on merits and mere non filing of affidavit-in-opposition by the respondents-State is not treated as an admission of facts averred by the petitioner in his petition. It is because of common points arising in the petition, that even such petitions have been finally heard. 6. Classifying the bunch of petitions coming from different districts where some gross malpractices were adopted as revealed from reports submitted on enquiry by the Secretary, Education Department, Govt of Assam under direction of this Court. The following chart will make the position clear. PLEASE SCANE TABLE 7. For the sake of convenience the writ appeals are taken up first. But these appeals also represent two different points - one propounded by the State and the other as propounded by the writ petitioners. 8. It would be better to get acquainted with the rule governing methods of recruitment and selection of teachers. These rules are called and known as the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. for short the Rules and ha? been framed by the State in exercise of power conferred under section 27 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Act. 1974. Rule 3 of the Rules reads as follows : "3. (i) Method of recruitment - In the month of January every year the DI shall invite applications in prescribed form of vacancies of Elementary School teachers which are likely to occur in the year in his establishment. ... ... (v) Selection Committee - There shall be a Selection Committee in each education Sub Division to be constituted by the Sub Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education. The Chairman of the Sub Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education and the DI of Schools shall be the Chairman and Secretary of the Selection Committee respectively. ... ... (v) Selection Committee - There shall be a Selection Committee in each education Sub Division to be constituted by the Sub Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education. The Chairman of the Sub Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education and the DI of Schools shall be the Chairman and Secretary of the Selection Committee respectively. (vi) On receipt of applications, the Selection Committee shall scrutinise the mark sheets and other necessary testimonials of the candidates and prepare a list of candidates for interview by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee shall then finalise the list of successful candidates a in order of merit after interview and shall put up the list before the Board for approval. While approving the list, the Board shall be guided by the declared policies of the Govt and instructions issued by the Govt from time to time. After approval of the list by the Board the same shall be sent to the Director of Elementary for his final approval. The Deputy Inspector of Schools will appoint the selected candidates in order of merit from the list approved by the Director as per Govt Rules and Govt instructions for the time being in force. The list shall be valid for one year unless its validity is extended by Govt...." 9. The Writ Appeal No. 186 of 1994 arises out of judgment and order dated 28.4.94 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.4281 of 1991 involving, as many as 10 writ petitioners-appellants, thereby dismissing the petition, but directing the respondent State to pay the petitioners their salaries for the period they had actually worked. 10. The Writ Appeal No.215 of 1995 also arises out of the same judgment dated 28.4.94 as passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.4281 of 1991 involving, as many as 200 petitioners. 11. The other Writ Appeal No.402 of 1996 is directed againstthe order dated 4.7.95 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.2704 of 1995. This appeal involves as many as 200 writ petitioner-appellants from one district of the State, namely, Barpeta alone, who had approached this Court challenging the Wireless Message dated 5.6.95 and 8.6.95 (Annexure 2 and 3) directing cancellation of all appointments of the appellants. The impugned order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference - "Heard Mr. This appeal involves as many as 200 writ petitioner-appellants from one district of the State, namely, Barpeta alone, who had approached this Court challenging the Wireless Message dated 5.6.95 and 8.6.95 (Annexure 2 and 3) directing cancellation of all appointments of the appellants. The impugned order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference - "Heard Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Let the records be called for. Let a rule issue calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ should not be issued as prayed for and/or why such further or other orders (s) should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper. Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned Govt Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. Notice to others shall be sent by registered post. It is alleged that appointments were made in the district of Barpeta regarding LP School Teachers and 238 appointment letters were issued by making empty dated signature without any select list. It is really a serious matter. In view of that matter these 238 appointments and also the 265 earlier appointments made shall stand suspended. It is made clear that the petitioners shall issue notice by way of public advertisement regarding institution of this case in two issues of two local news papers, i.e. in Assam Tribune and Dainik Asom for the information of all concerned so that the persons affected and the persons who are interested may come and intervene in this case. This shall be done within two (2) weeks from today. It is also made clear that this order I have passed only after hearing Mr. AM Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned Govt Advocate who fairly submits that he does not have instruction at this moment to make submission regarding the allegation made in this writ application. In view of that matter, the persons affected as well as the Govt may come up for modification/cancellation/alteration of this order." 12. Since the learned Single Judge suspended 238 appointments as also the other 265 appointments made earlier and directed issuance of notice to be published in two local news papers so that the persons adversely affected or otherwise interested may come forward to intervene in the matter. Aggrieved by the suspension, the writ petitioner-appellants have filed this appeal. 13. Since the learned Single Judge suspended 238 appointments as also the other 265 appointments made earlier and directed issuance of notice to be published in two local news papers so that the persons adversely affected or otherwise interested may come forward to intervene in the matter. Aggrieved by the suspension, the writ petitioner-appellants have filed this appeal. 13. As observed by the learned Single Judge, as many as 238 appointments were not only issued without there being any select list, but also ante dated. It is of course as has been rightly noted by the learned Single Judge is a serious matter, and naturally therefore, no interim relief was granted. Since the matter relates to the appointment of teachers and their regularisation, this appeal was also listed alongwith other such appeals, although Mr. N. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants tried to make out a separate case for the appellants, justifying the appointments which would be separately dealt with at the appropriate stage. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has raised the following points - (i) that the question before the learned Single Judge was regarding cancellation of appointments and not the legality of the appointment, (ii) the learned Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction and departed from the issue involved in the case, the vital issue had gone untouched, (iii) the learned Single Judge was in error in dispensing with natural justice and equity before passing the cancellation order dated 30.9.91. It was also urged, that in other writ petitions involving identical points, the learned Single Judge instead of rejecting the petition, should have referred the matter to a larger Bench, and. rejection of their petitions was contrary to law. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in Bir Bajrang Kumar vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1345 . 15. As has been rightly noted by the learned Single Judge that there was no advertisement issued nor applications invited for the post of teachers, the appointments were made in utter disregard of Rule 3 of the Rules as quoted above. These appointments also violated Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as, other qualified eligible candidates, were kept out of consideration and not even provided with the opportunity to apply for the post. These appointments also violated Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as, other qualified eligible candidates, were kept out of consideration and not even provided with the opportunity to apply for the post. The contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the moot question was regarding cancellation order and not validity of the initial appointment, cannot be accepted. Initially appointments and its subsequent results are closely interlinked. The writ petitioner appellants were appointed as Elementary School teachers as per order dated 30.10.90 vide orders Annexure 1 to 10. These are cyclostyled proforma orders and one of them is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "Govt of Assam Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools : Silchar, Cachar. In pursunace of the Secretary Education to the GOA! of Assam's Orders No.EPG.701/ 90/48 dated 20.10.90 Sri/Smti Inhaque Uddin Mazmndar passedHSLC/PU/HSSLC Examination of village & PO Ichapur, Dist Cachar is hereby appointed temporarily as LP Teacher vice Sliri/Smti Mohibur Rahman Choudhury, 776 Mazingram LP School retired/expired and posted at 457 - Ichapur LP School as usual scate of pay. This appointment is purely temporary and terminable without assigning any reasons thereof." 16. The orders clearly state that the appointments were temporary against vacancies caused due to retirement or death of one or other teacher. This order was issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools Mr. AU Ahmed while holding the charge of Deputy Inspector of Schools and was about to retire. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a-grievance that no enquiry was held and the elementary inks of natural justice were violated, it is not factually correct. A show cause notice dated 26.4.91 was given and the writ petitioner-appellants were called upon to show cause as to why their appointments should not be cancelled. The show cause notice itself is self-explanatory. The appointment orders were issued in utter disregard of the rules, no selection, no interview, nothing of the sort was followed in the matter of public appointments. The show cause notice dated 26.4.91 speaks for itself. It is reproduced hereunder : "No. 1975-578 Dated Silchar the 26th April, 1991 To, Sri....... It has been found that you had been appointed under Memo No. 1883 6-42 dated 30.10.90 issued by Sri A. Ahmed, Incharge DI of Schools, Silchar, (now retired; irregularly without verification of particulars and in violation of Govt. It is reproduced hereunder : "No. 1975-578 Dated Silchar the 26th April, 1991 To, Sri....... It has been found that you had been appointed under Memo No. 1883 6-42 dated 30.10.90 issued by Sri A. Ahmed, Incharge DI of Schools, Silchar, (now retired; irregularly without verification of particulars and in violation of Govt. directives/as you were not selected candidate against vacancy which non-existent. You are directed to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why your appointment shall not be cancelled. If you fail to show cause your claim for appointment shall stand terminable on expiry of this period, mentioned above." 18. When the initial appointment itself is not only in contravention of statutory rules, but against all cannons of fairness and the appointment letters were cancelled after giving show cause notice, rules of natural justice are sufficiently complied with and that it cannot be said that rules of natural justice were violated. In the circumstances of the case where initial appointment were dubious in nature, the appointment letters issued by one who was merely holding the charge and on the verge of retirement, issuing such letters, the beneficiaries of such inconscionable gain cannot be allowed to retain the same and maintained in a writ petition, which is essentially lies in the equitable jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the petition. The time gap between the date of issuance of appointment letter and the show cause notice is hardly 6 months. 19. So far as Bir Bajrang Kumar (supra) is concerned the principle laid down thereunder cannot be disputed. There has to be an uniformity in the orders passed by any Court on identical points. As a proposition of law there can be no quarrel with the submissions made by the learned counsel, but the point that he is missing is that Bir Bajrang Kumar's case deals with preliminary order governing admission of a writ petition. There must be uniformity in such matters, relating to admission if the points involved are identical. 20. What was referred to by the learned Single Judge, an order dated 22.3.94 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.4048 of 1991. There must be uniformity in such matters, relating to admission if the points involved are identical. 20. What was referred to by the learned Single Judge, an order dated 22.3.94 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.4048 of 1991. In that case, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the show cause notice did not disclose the grounds on which the Govt wanted to terminate the services of the petitioners. A mere glance at the show cause notice as reproduced above, is self-explanatory. The first paragraph itself assigns the ground that the writ petitioners were appointed by Shri A. Ahmed. Incharge DI of Schools who retired. The appointments were - (i) vague, (ii) without verification of particulars, (iii) appointments were in violation of Govt directives, (iv) appointments was made against non-existent vacancies. These are the grounds, amply spelt out from the show cause notice (Annexure 12) and the writ petitioner-appellants' reply to the aforesaid show cause notice filed as Annexure 13. does not even remotely suggest that the show cause notice was ambiguous or vague in nature which prevented them from giving a reply. In fact, it was their contention that they were appointed by competent authority, and it cannot be termed as vague, the appointment orders were issued after due verification of all particulars, which they claim to have submitted to Shri AU Ahmed. Their contention in reply to the show cause notice was that Shri AU Ahmed was competent to make appointments, having exercised these power to appoint. The writ petitioner-appellants in their reply to the show cause notice had gone to the extent of imputing malafide of the authority issuing the show cause notice in face of the order dated 13.8.91 passed in Civil Rule No.2307 of 1991 directing the respondents to pay 50% of pay in that petition. This order dated 13.8.91 passed in Civil Rule No.2307 of 1991 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference - "13.8.91: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we propose to dispose of the petition with the following direction. We direct the Deputy Inspector of Schools and other respondents to pay due salaries of the petitioners for the actual period of services in pursuance of the appointment letters within a period of 2 months from today. We direct the Deputy Inspector of Schools and other respondents to pay due salaries of the petitioners for the actual period of services in pursuance of the appointment letters within a period of 2 months from today. In case of the appointment, are found to be in violation of the rules and procedure, the amount shall be recovered from the authority who made the appointment. We make it clear that there will be no bar to cancel the appointment if it was not in accordance with rules. With the above direction, this petition is closed." 21. Mere reading of the above order would go to show that the Court had taken into account the element of illegality in the matter of appointment and there after directed recovery of money from the erring officer who issued appointment orders and gave the liberty to the authorities to cancel appointments, if it was not in accordance with rules. The only element of vagueness in the show cause notice, which the writ petitioner have pointed out in their reply is with regard to the Govt directions and circulars (see para 3 of the reply to show cause notice. Annexure 13). Even this so called vagueness is without any substance. Rule 3. as quoted abovs. clearly provides for inviting applications, a procedure for selection as provided, and after undergoing procedure, the Selection Committee is required to finalise the list of successful candidates in order of merit. Nothing of the sort is done in the instant case. 22. This writ appeal (WA No.215 of 1995) was dismissed on 24.5.95 by a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, a Special Leave Petition was preferred and the Supreme Court directed reconsideration of the decision so as to bring about uniformity of approach in the matter in accordance with service rules. Accordingly, the same had been reconsidered in the light of rules, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel (Bir Bajrang's case). As discussed above, the judgment and order dated 23.4.95 and the order dated 13.8.91 passed in Civil Rule No.2307 of 1991 have been considered. The judgment by the learned Single Judge as noted above, found fault with the show cause notice which has not disclosed the grounds. But as discussed above, the grounds of proposed cancellation of appointment are amply reflected in the show cause notice. The judgment by the learned Single Judge as noted above, found fault with the show cause notice which has not disclosed the grounds. But as discussed above, the grounds of proposed cancellation of appointment are amply reflected in the show cause notice. Bir Bajrang's case (supra) is a judgment relating to admission of writ petitions and the uniformity of approach in such matters. The learned Single Judge who allowed the petition by order dated 22.3.94 proceeded on erroneous reading and assumption of the show cause notice that it did not disclose the grounds on which Govt. wanted to terminate the services of the petitioners. This is not so, even the petitioners had no difficulty in replying to the show cause notice and the grounds are manifestly indicated in the show cause notice (Annexure 12). Thus the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, is clearly distinguishable. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Bishamber Dutt, (1996) 11 SCC 341 , has held that a persons appointed dehors the rule, even though regularly worked for a long time are not entitled to regularisation. Similarly, in P. Ravindran vs. Union Territory of Pondichery, (1995) 1 SCC 350, the Apex Court has pointed out that the process of recruitment as envisaged undeTthe rules cannot be bypassed by issuing directions for regularisation of services of ad hoc person, who had come into the service through backdoor entry. In the instant case, appointment of teachers as already noted above, is not only dehors the rules, but also a gross malpractices committed by some of the officers/employees of the State in league with some of the candidates appointed as teachers and they are now facing criminal charges. 23. Corrupt practices are not confined to a parties in district of the State, they spread over the length and breadth of the State right through Cachar. Jorhat, Darrang etc and the large number of backdoor entries of teachers made and appointed dehors the rules, can best described in the following chart - Name of District Writ petition No. No of petitionersWhether Enquiry name of party report submitted Cachar CR No. 108/95 Gopal Ch Das & ors 20 Yes Cachar CR No.324/95 Moinuddin Mozumdar 63 Yes Barpeta CR No. 1/95 Gobinda Gopal Das & ors 12 Yes Barpeta CR No. 91/95 Baikuntha Baishya & ors 3 Yes Barpeta CR No. 97/95 . RenuThakuria 1 Yes Barpeta CR No. 101/95 Abdul Haque 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Barpeta CR No. 104/95 Biva Devi 1 Barpeta CR No. 107/95 Girin Deka & anothers 2 Barpeta CR No. 136/95 Usha Devi 1 Barpeta CR No. 1077/95 Madhusudan Das 1 Barpeta CR No.2653/95 Md Abdul Barik & ors 7 Bongaingaon CR No.2765/95 Bongaingaon Zila ME, MV & Madrassa Navanijukta Sikshak Santha 532 Sonitpur CRNo.485/95 Smti Renu Bhagawati 1 Sonitpur CRNo.2919/95 Maya Hazarika 1 Jorhat CR No.385/95 Nayan Dulal Dutta & Anr 2 Jorhat CR No. 1090/95 Dibakar Saikia 1 Darrang CR No.4048/94 Bhupendra Saikia & Ors 5 Kamrup CRNo.23/95 Smti Nanda Sarma & Ors 5 Kamrup CR No. 103/95 Digambar Kalita & Ors 5 Kamrup CR No. 109/95 Gagan Kalita & Ors 6 Kamrup CR No. 139/95 Smti Manjumani Dutta 2 & another J-'amrup CR No. 158/95 Akhil Ch Mazumdar 1 Kamrup CR No. 159/95 Dilip Kumar Das 1 Kamrup CR No. 160/95 Pranab Kumar Sarma 1 Kamrup CR No. 161/95. Smti Tarulata Das 1 Kamrup CR No. 162/95 Biren Kalita 1 Kamrup CR No. 163/95 Sidheswar Das 1 Kamrup CR No.205/95 Md Sahajuddin Ahmed 1 Kamrup CRNo.243/95 Mrs Utpala Mahanta 1 Kamrup CR No.286/95 Arun Ch Thakuria 1 Kamrup CR No.709/95 Mrs Nurjahan Begum 1 Yes Kamrup CR No. 1199/95 Robin Sarma 1 Yes Kamrup CR No. 1904/95 Pradip Kr Das & Ors 4 Yes Kamrup CRNo.2227/95 Dilip Kumar Malakar 1 Yes Kamrup CR No. 5227/94 Nabadip Kr Gayan & Ors 5 Yes 24. The enormity of the problem can well be gauged from the hundreds of petitioners school teachers involved in the bunch of petitions seeking regularisation of their services. Gross irregularities and malpractices were alleged in the matter of appointments of teachers. 25. In view of the above position this Court during the course of hearing of these petitions, passed the following order on 12.3.96 : "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that for properly adjudicating the controversy raised in the present civil rule, it is necessary to have an independent report from the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Guwahati in whose area the school in which the petitioners had been appointed as teacher falls. The Commissioner of the Division will submit his report to this Court within a period of one month from the date of service of the copy of this order along with copies of the civil rule and any affidavit which might have been filed in the civil rule. The Commissioner of the Division will give the report to this Court on the following points : (i) Whether the appointment of the writ petitioner was made against available sanctioned post or vacant post ? (ii) In case the appointment of the petitioner or any of the petitioners had been made against the sanctioned, vacant post, whether it had been made after following the procedure prescribed for the selection of teachers on those posts ? (iii) In case it is found by the Commissioner of the Division that, the appointment had been made either on sanctioned vacant post or by not following the procedure prescribed for making the selection of teachers, whether any direct or circumstantial evidence exists on the records indicating that the appointment had been made for any extraneous consideration and if so, by whom ? The Commissioner of the Division will specifically name the authority/authorities/officers found to have been responsible for getting such appointment made. A copy of this order will also be served on the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and all educational authorities under him who are in possession of the relevant original records, for the purpose of completion of this enquiry and they are hereby directed that on the asking of the Commissioner of the Division it will be their duty to place before the Commissioner all the relevant original records forthwith and may even place the services of the officers who may be required by the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Guwahati for this assistance. It is being made clear that the Commissioner of the Division while submitting the report will also take into account the reply, if any, which the petitioner has given to the show cause notice which had been issued by the competent authority before terminating his service and will also take into consideration the materials which have been filed in this Court in the shape of affidavits." 26. The writ petitioners were also afforded opportunity to place any material in support of their case/claim before the Commissioner who was directed to hold enquiry under orders of the Court. The writ petitioners were also afforded opportunity to place any material in support of their case/claim before the Commissioner who was directed to hold enquiry under orders of the Court. According!)' in most of the cases the report has been submitted by the Commissioner. Even in such cases/petitions where enquiry report has not been submitted, the points, such as. availability of vacant sanctioned posts of teachers, whether the procedural rules governing selection and appointment of teachers were followed, whether there are circumstances suggesting the appointments were made on extraneous considerations, on which the report was sought are nevertheless relevant and important for deciding these petitions. Thus even absence of enquiry report in a given case does not preclude the Court from considering the points noted above. Regularisation or absorption in service presupposes existence of vacant sanctioned posts. The question following the rules in matters of public appointments, is equally important. Even if there be no statutory rules, yet following a fair procedure is a must. The rules as quoted above have to be followed as matter of minimum procedural fairness. Whether appointment of teachers or clerks in Govennental organisation or schools, it cannot be left to the whims or caprice of an individual authority. The action must be supportable on fairness of norms and procedure governing selection and appointment of teachers. There is no reason why should the above rules be allowed to be conveniently departed from. 27. Mr. Dutta. learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.402 of 1995 submitted that the appellants were appointed along with 265 others as mentioned in paragraph II (1) to II (3) of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. They were not involved in the Court cases relating to the appointment of those 265 teachers. There was no question of taking any advantage of the withdrawal of cases pending before this Court on 27.4.95. It is also denied that the Sub Divisional Advisory Board became active overnight and selected and appointed teachers who were appointed without any approval by the Director of Elementary Education. Assam. The appellants appointments were not issued in any hush-hush manner as alleged and they are claimed to be perfectly legal. Reference was made to certain Annexures filed along with the affidavit-in-reply for and on behalf of the appellants, particularly Annexure 7. a letter dated 10th June. Assam. The appellants appointments were not issued in any hush-hush manner as alleged and they are claimed to be perfectly legal. Reference was made to certain Annexures filed along with the affidavit-in-reply for and on behalf of the appellants, particularly Annexure 7. a letter dated 10th June. 1993 as issued by the Director informing the District Elementary Education Officer that the ban imposed on the appointment of primary and Middle School teachers was partially lifted. Even if one goes by this letter. Annexure 7. which is reproduced below for ready reference, the appellants' appointments cannot be saved in view of the fact that the partial lifting of ban was only in respect of teachers whose appointments were to be made on the basis of select list prepared as per the guidelines by the Sub Divisional Advisory Board, to be headed by the respective MLAs/Ministers. and these select lists prepared by the Sub Divisional Advisory Board and the appointment letters to be issued pursuant thereto were to be countersigned by the Director before issuing the same. "Govt of Assam Office of the Director of Elementary Education : Assam. No.EAA/12/73/Pt/89/131 Dated Kahilipara, the 10th June, 1993. To, 1. The District Elementary Education Officer ........ (all) 2. The DI of Schools..... (all) Sub : Appointment of teacher in Primary/Middle Schools. Ref: Govt letter No.PMA.109/92/Pt dated 8.6.93. Sir, In pursuance of Govt letter and subject cited above, I have the honour to inform you that the ban is hereby partially lifted with immediate effect in respect of appointment in Primary and Middle Schools only where appointments are to be made on the basis of select list prepared as per guideline communicated earlier and duly recommended by the Sub Divisional Advisory Board headed by the respective Ministers. The approval of the undersigned in such select list prepared by the Sub Divisional Advisory Board and counter signature in such appointment letters by the undersinged before issue are not necessary. You are therefore instructed to take necessary action accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Director, Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19. Memo No.EAA. 12/73/Pt/89/131 dated Kahilipara, the 10th June/1993. Copy to : 1. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department with reference to Govt. letter No. PMA. 198/92/Pt dtd 8.6.93." Two hundred ninty three posts of primary school teachers were sanctioned by the State Govt. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Director, Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19. Memo No.EAA. 12/73/Pt/89/131 dated Kahilipara, the 10th June/1993. Copy to : 1. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department with reference to Govt. letter No. PMA. 198/92/Pt dtd 8.6.93." Two hundred ninty three posts of primary school teachers were sanctioned by the State Govt. vide letter No.EPG.567/91/105 dated 16.11.91 for upgradation of single teachers primary school to double teacher and these posts were allotted schoolwise. It is too obvious that the appellants were appointed on 5.5.93 after preparation of the select list and have continued to their posts upto 12.9.96. Soon after their appointments writ petition Civil Rule No. 1083 of 1993 was filed staying the appointment orders dated 5.5.93. The writ petition was withdrawn on 27.4.95, thus the stay order passed earlier stood vacated. Thereafter another Advisory Board under the Chairmanship of Shri Ismail Hussain Khan. Ex-MP was constituted for another 237 candidates. Again a petition was filed and the appointments as proposed were stayed by order dated 4.7.95 passed in Civil Rule No.2705 of 1995. The present Writ Appeal 402 of 1995 is the result of the stay order. As already noted above, an enquiry was directed by this Court. Accordingly the Enquiry Report has been placed on record although it is criticised on the ground that only 20 petitioners and 4 outsiders were heard by the Commissioner. The opportunity was extended to all but they do not admit of it. the Enquiry Officer cannot be blamed of that. A mere reading of the Enquiry Report would reveal the legality, validity and procedural fairness of the appointments made. The following extracts from the report is quoted as a ready reference : ''During the enquiry, it was revealed that 265 candidates were appointed in May, 1993 and 235 numbers of candidates were appointed in May, 1995 against vacant posts. According to the present Director of Elementary Education, 500 candidates in total were appointed in two phases. Shri Ratneswar Goswami, now retired and the former DI of Schools issued the appointment orders in the month of May, 1993 for 265 numbers of candidates as LP School teachers. Shri Lohit Chandra Sanna the former DI of Schools, Barpeta who is presently under suspension, issued appointment orders in respect of 235 Nos. of LP School teachers in the month of Ma); 1995. Shri Lohit Chandra Sanna the former DI of Schools, Barpeta who is presently under suspension, issued appointment orders in respect of 235 Nos. of LP School teachers in the month of Ma); 1995. According to the evidence tendered by present Director of Elementary Education, who was not the Director of Elementary Education during the relevant period of issue of such appointments, based on the record available, it was ascertained that 265 persons were appointed as Stipendary Teachers in LP Schools in Barpeta Sub Division. According to him, appointment letters were seen to be countersigned by the former Director of Elementary Education, but records were not available indicating the so called approval of selection list by the then Director of Elementary Education and therefore, there is no concrete evidence to indicate that a select list of teachers numbering 265 was approved by the then Director of Elementary Education. ......... Though in this particular civil rule, the posts to which the candidates were appointed were apparently the sanctioned posts or vacant posts as per evidence tendered by the officers, I still have grave doubts as to whether the posts were really sanctioned by the Govt and whether the Director of Elementary Education had the authority to issue a list of 292 candidates and that too with the names of the candidates and the schools to which they should have been appointed. I have carefully perused the documents and according to order No.EPD/PLA/47/91/4/71 dated 21.12.91, the Director of Elementary Education indicated that the "pursuance of Govt letter No.EDG. 567/91/105 dated 16.11.91,2 92 posts of Stipendary teachers with the monthly stipend of Rs.750/- per month are hereby placed at the disposal of District Elementary Education Officer, Barpeta for giving allotment to the single teachers schools as per list enclosed". There is no indication in that letter as to how exactly the posts had fallen vacant or whether the posts were sanctioned in a proper manner by the Govt. The actual letter dated 16.11.91 quoted in the order dated 12.12.91 was not produced before me by the officers of the Education Department. Moreover, it appears that the Director of Elementary Education himself selected 292 candidates based on some instruction from somewhere in the hierarchy. The actual letter dated 16.11.91 quoted in the order dated 12.12.91 was not produced before me by the officers of the Education Department. Moreover, it appears that the Director of Elementary Education himself selected 292 candidates based on some instruction from somewhere in the hierarchy. Neither the Director of Elementary Education who has submitted the statement and who is presently holding the charge nor the former DI of Schools and the present DI of Schools had given any indication as to how exactly these 292 persons were selected by the so called Sub Divisional Advisory Board for Education Department. Likewise, the socalled appointment of 235 Nos. of candidates, which is the bone of contention in this particular civil rule is also extremely very vague and devoid of clarity of proper procedure and vivid description of the selection procedure adopted by the Sub Divisional Advisory Board for Elementary Education. It appears that it was an organised racket involving the former Director of Elementary Education, the former DI of Schools Shri Ratneswar Goswami (Retd) mid Shri Lohit Chandra Sarma, former DI of Schools and presently under suspension, the then Chairman of the Sub Divisional Advisory Board for Elementary Education and Members of the Board. ... ... ... In all these appointments, certainly, extraneous consideration alone must have played a vital role and the former Director of Elementary Education, the former DI of Schools Shri Ratneswar Goswami (Retd) and Shri Lohit Chandra Sarma, former DI of Schools now under suspension, and the then Chairman of the Sub Divisional Advisory Board for Elementary Education and Members of the Board were certaintly responsible for such irregular and arbitrary appointments in a thoroughly blatant manner in total violation of rules and regulations and the principles of natural justice. ......... Therefore, I conclude that all such irregular, illegal and unwarranted and thoroughly arbitrary appointments were issued with monetary considerations alone as the prime motivating fact. Moreover, I have certainly grave doubts about the actual numbers of sanctioned posts or vacant posts based against which such appointments were made without the proper and transparent selection procedure." 28. As has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that selection according to rules is a condition precedent for regularisation. Union of India vs. Biswambar Dutt, (1996) 11 SCC 341 was a case where appointments were made on part time basis dehors the rules. As has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that selection according to rules is a condition precedent for regularisation. Union of India vs. Biswambar Dutt, (1996) 11 SCC 341 was a case where appointments were made on part time basis dehors the rules. Although it was found that they were regularly working for a long time, the Supreme Court held that they were not entitled to regularisation as it was contrary to rules. A similar view has been expressed in Union of India vs. Motilal, (1996) 7 SCC 481 . Although it was a case of casual mates though acquiring temporary status by pleading the requisite length of service, yet the Apex Court held that this completion of requisite length of service would not ipso facto entitled regularisation. As compared to these cases, the cases at hand is the result of rampant racket. By series of decisions compliance of rales of selection has been emphasised all along. The UP Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad appointed daily wages for doing manual work like that of a regular Class IV employee. It was held in absence of sanctioned post, such employees were neither entitled to regularisation nor entitled to parity with regular employees (See State of UP vs. Madhyamik Siksha Parishad Sikshak Sangstha, AIR 1996 SC 608. Where the recruitment itself is unlawful without following the selection process and despite direction to produce the record to substantiate the existence of vacancies which according to the department had occurred because of promotions, the Supreme Court not only held in Gangal Ram vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 1 SCC 716 that such petitioners are not entitled to any relief but also observed that it could rightly be inferred that promotions were made after accepting illegal gratification. In the instant case the Director failed to produce the record. The only difference is that instead of Court, the Director failed to produce the record before the Enquiry Officer who was ordered to enquire under the order of this Court. If there had been proper sanction of posts and the procedure for selection of candidates as per rales was in fact followed, nothing was easier for the erring officers of the department than to produce the record before the Enquiry Officer, who was none else than the Education Commissioner itself. If there had been proper sanction of posts and the procedure for selection of candidates as per rales was in fact followed, nothing was easier for the erring officers of the department than to produce the record before the Enquiry Officer, who was none else than the Education Commissioner itself. It was also urged by some of the writ petitioners that being trained and qualified teachers they had and have a legitimate expectation of being appointed as teachers but their expectations are being belied. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned as already noted above, regularisation in sendee cannot be made on compassionate grounds. Where the whole process of selection is stinking with illegalities and corruption, the expectations cannot be said to be legitimate. This aspect of the matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Pashchim Banga Prathamik Sikshak Sikshan Prapts Bakaro Sikshak Samiti vs. President, West Bengal Primary School Council, (1996) 7 SCC 333 and can well be referred to. 29. Even in cases where there is no report, such cases are very very few. the orders under challenge are not free from the stigma. It is not such a case where the averments made by the writ petitioners can be deemed to be correct. In absence of any affidavit-in-opposition the impugned orders formed part of the same rampant collusion and corruption which gripped several districts of the State. Hundreds of appointment orders were issued dehors the rules. In such cases merely because no afFidavit-in-opposition is filed or no enquiry report was submitted, it cannot be said that the cases of such petitioners do not form the chain of fraudulent orders of appointment issued in hundreds. 30. A grievance was made that the appointments have been abruptly terminated without even a show cause, much less an enquiry, learned Govt Advocate defended the WT Message issued by the Govt cancelling all such appointments. What else could have been done in face of the enormity of the problem that faced the State ? These are not the cases where the appointees can claim a regular enquiry or any protection of the rules, which were trampled with impugnity. In issuing the orders the whole series of action stinking with fraud and corruption. What else could have been done in face of the enormity of the problem that faced the State ? These are not the cases where the appointees can claim a regular enquiry or any protection of the rules, which were trampled with impugnity. In issuing the orders the whole series of action stinking with fraud and corruption. It is quite understandable that had there been a regular appointment order issued in favour of a particular candidate, he could have claimed some protection but when hundreds of appointment orders are issued overnight without any advertisement, without any "application forms, without any process of selection or interview, the manner in which the appointments were cancelled, cannot be faulted with on any legitimate ground. It was argued on behalf of the teachers so appointed that they are not to be blamed for the misdeeds of the officers and a sympathetic approach in their case is called for. Firstly, the submission as made is not wholly correct and secondly, so far as the regularisation in service is concerned, it cannot be done on compassionate grounds, nor such regularisation based on compassionate grounds can be said to be valid. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider this aspect of the matter in State of Orissa & others vs. Sukanti Mohapatra & others, AIR 1993 SC 1650 . It was a case relating to ministerial sendee and recruitment to the post of Lower Division Assistant in the offices of heads of department of the Govt of Orissa. This is what the Supreme Court held : "From what we have discussed so far it does appear that after the rules were brought into force with effect from January 1, 1976, the recruitment was made in total disregard of the rules in 1976 and thereafter even of those who did not possess the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the job under the rules. Such recruits have been described as 'irregular'. Rule 14 empowers the Govt to relax any rule or rules in public interest for any class or category of persons for reasons to be stated in writing. However, it is clear from the two orders reproduced hereinabove that the regularisation was made for individuals specified in the orders who had made representations and not for any class or category or persons. However, it is clear from the two orders reproduced hereinabove that the regularisation was made for individuals specified in the orders who had made representations and not for any class or category or persons. True it is that the persons named in the orders were irregular appointees but the orders do not say that all irregular appointees will stand regularised under the said orders. Then, the first order of January 3, 1985 says that regularisation is being permitted on compassionate grounds which would depend on the fact-situation of each appointee. Even if it is assumed that these irregular recruits constituted a class or category of persons, Rule 14 could be invoked in public interest only. If compassionate ground is the public interest for regularisation it is difficult to understand how such a factual aspect can form the basis for public interest. Assuming that their having served for long years is a valid reason for regularisation, that, without anything more, will not meet the requirement of the action being in public interest. Rule 14 requires that the reasons in support of the action being in public interest must be stated in writing but no reason other than 'compassionate grounds' appear in the first order. And what are those compassionate grounds ? The order does not provide the answer. The subsequent order of February 14, 1985, does not even pretent to state that the action is in public interest. It is totally silent on this point. It would, therefore, seem that the essential requirement i.e. the condition precedent for the exercise of power under Rule 14, namely, public interest, is not shown to have been satisfied. Next Rule 14 permits relaxation of "any of the provisions of the rules" but does not speak of regularisation. Ex-facie the two orders do not speak of any particular rule or rules having been relaxed but provides for regularising the sendees of specified individuals whose appointments were outside and inconsistent with the rules. The reason for exercise of power in the case of nine appointees covered under the order of January 3,1985 is stated to be 'compassionate grounds' and in the case of those covered under the second order of Febuary 14, 1985, no ground at all. The reason for exercise of power in the case of nine appointees covered under the order of January 3,1985 is stated to be 'compassionate grounds' and in the case of those covered under the second order of Febuary 14, 1985, no ground at all. Such orders, therefore, cannot have the protection of Rule 14 nor can the appointments be regularised as having been made under the rules so as to dislodge the seniority or regularly appointed persons." 31. Satpal vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Suppl (1) SCC 206 was a case where a large number of Patwaris 485 were to be appointed, the selection was to be made by Subordinate Services Selection Board which was dissolved and reconstituted. The initial advertisement for existing 485 vacancies was enlarged to 1.000 or there about. A large number of candidates have applied, various committees were constituted by the Board for interviewing the candidates at different stations and, as many as, 231 & candidates were selected. The Govt reduced the number to 1313, who on their successful completion of training, would eventually be appointed as Patwaris under the provisions of the Haryana Revenue Patwaris (Group C) Service Rules, 1981. The selection process was challenged by way of writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. From the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit it was found that on one single day, as many as, 400 to 600 candidates were interviewed by each committee appointed by the Selection Board. The selection process was denounced as farce. It was in this background of facts that the Supreme Court held that this provides reason to believe that the selection process tainted to be arbitrary. In any case there is room for such suspicion and finally in paragraph 9 of the judgment held : "We would like to make it clear that we have limited our consideration to the procedure adopted at the preselection stage and have not thought it necessary to examine the procedure at the post selection stage. Once we hold that the entire selection process was tainted, we are not able to uphold the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the appellants had received training and had passed the examination, they should be protected. It must be remembered that out of 1,313 candidates selected, 574 were sent for training. Once we hold that the entire selection process was tainted, we are not able to uphold the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the appellants had received training and had passed the examination, they should be protected. It must be remembered that out of 1,313 candidates selected, 574 were sent for training. Because of the interim order of the Court only 485, including the reserved category, could be appointed. The others were not sent for training because of the pendency of the petitions. Even out of those sent for training others in excess of 485 could not be appointed because of the interim order dated 6.3.19,91. To protect 485 and not others would be quite discriminatory, in that, the 485 candidates whose entry is in the same tainted manner as others would secure appointment while others would not. We think that once the process of selection is found to be tainted, whatever had flowed consequent thereto must also fall along with the process of selection. We, therefore, see no merit in this plea." 32. The cases at hand is a deliberate flouting of rules with impugnity right from its initial most stage. All these appointments have been made by trampling the rules. 33. The Supreme Court has again highlighted the compliance of rules in a very recent judgment as reported in State of Haryana vs. Surinder Kumar, (1997) 3 SCC 633 . Referring ,to Jasmir Singh's case, (1996) 11 SCC 77 the Supreme Court pointed out: "Obviously the respondents' recruitment was not made in accordance with the rules. This Court has also pointed out in State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh in that behalf. If any illegal actions have been taken by the officers and the higher authorities are directed to look into the matter and see that such actions are rectified, but that would not be a matter for this Court to give legitimacy to illegal acts done by the officers and to grant relief on the basis of wrong or illegal actions of superior officers. The appropriate authority would look into and take suitable disciplinary action against the erring officers." 34. We are not on technical rigid adherence to the rules - they are nothing but norms of fairness and fairplay in action must be reflected. 35. The appropriate authority would look into and take suitable disciplinary action against the erring officers." 34. We are not on technical rigid adherence to the rules - they are nothing but norms of fairness and fairplay in action must be reflected. 35. The gist of the enquiry report on the pointed query made by the Court vide order dated 12.3.96, is extracted below : "Query No.1 - Whether the appointment of writ petitioner was made against the available sanctioned post or vacant post ? Statement: There are 5 (five) petitioners in this Civil Rule No.23 of 1995. The appointment of the petitioners was made against non-existent posts. It is pertinent to mention here that the appointments were made in pursuance of allotment orders issued by Shri PC Konwar, (retired), former Director of Elementary Education, Assam. Originally 1,000 Nos. of posts of Assistant Teacher of Elementary Education were sanctioned by the Govt vide letter No.EVS.76/72/547 dated 12th March, 1977 under minimum needs programme in the year 1977, out of which 657 Nos. of posts were allotted to different Middle Schools by the then DPI. Accordingly annual retention of this 657 Nos. of posts were issued by the Govt from time to time till 1991-92. The latest retention order was EVS/76/72/Pt-III/74 dated 6.8.91. Shri PC Konwar allotted 5 Nos. of posts for the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid retention order only. It was not a sanction order. Hence 5 posts allotted in the name of the petitioners were non existent. These are not sanctioned/vacant post. Query No.2 - In case the appointment of the petitioner or petitioners had been made against sanctioned/vacant post, whether it has been made after following the procedure prescribed for the selection of teacher of these posts. Statement: Since the allotment order issued mentioning the names of the schools of the petitioners, the District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup issued appointment letter in pursuance of the allotment orders issued by the then Director, anticipating the approval of the Sub Divisional Advisory Board. That time the District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup did not follow any selection procedure, through the Sub Divisional Advisory Board as per departmental procedure." 36. It was contended that the report is based on no material. But this contention itself is baseless and advanced for the sake of advancing it. That time the District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup did not follow any selection procedure, through the Sub Divisional Advisory Board as per departmental procedure." 36. It was contended that the report is based on no material. But this contention itself is baseless and advanced for the sake of advancing it. A mere reading of the reports submitted by the Commissioner would go to show how these large number of appointment of teachers were made flouting all norms of decency and fairness, let alone the rules as quoted above. 37. In face of the above report, which is by and large common with slight variation here or there, but in substance the same so far as the vitiating factors are concerned, the appointments conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit cannot be regularised or validated. There was no selection, no interview, or fake or ghost interviews, tampering with records and fabricating documents. In such circumstances as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Krishan Yadav vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1994 SC 2166 , an inference can be drawn that all was motivated by extraneous considerations. The entire process of making appointments is stinking. Really speaking, the moment posts were allotted to a particular district, it was a free play for all and the net result is these appointments. All norms of procedural fairness had been thrown to winds, the rules were given a convenient go-bye. Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution violated with impunity. These petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 38. The State appeals, namely, Writ Appeal Nos.59 of 1995, 60 of 1995, 61 of 1995, 62 of 1995, 63 of 1995, 64 of 1995, 65 of 1995 and 66 of 1995 are allowed. The other writ appeals, namely Writ Appeal Nos. 186 of 1994, 215 of 1995, 216 of 1995 of 1995 and 402 of 1996 are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. It is accordingly maintained. The interim orders passed, needless to add. stands automatically vacated. 39. Considering the nature and manner in which the appointments were made, le directions so far as it relates to continuance of the writ petitioner-respondents (in Writ Appeal Nos.59 to 67 of 1995) and writ petitioners-appellants (in Writ Appeal Nos. It is accordingly maintained. The interim orders passed, needless to add. stands automatically vacated. 39. Considering the nature and manner in which the appointments were made, le directions so far as it relates to continuance of the writ petitioner-respondents (in Writ Appeal Nos.59 to 67 of 1995) and writ petitioners-appellants (in Writ Appeal Nos. 186 of 1994, 215 of 1995, 216 of 1995 and 402 of 1996) in service, cannot be sustained in law, it is accordingly quashed. But, they shall be entitled to their salaries for the actual period for which they have rendered their services. The impugned judgment and directions so far as it relates to reinstatement in service, is set aside. 40. Considering large number of teachers, appointed in hundreds and thousand in total disregard to all norms of fairness and recruitment rules as quoted above, the respondent State is directed to streamline the process of selection at its earliest and such teachers who are affected by this order should also be afforded an opportunity to offer themselves as candidates, subject to their fulfilment of conditions of eligibility for being considered for selection to the post of teacher. If necessary, relaxation in age, as permissible under the rules be extended to such teachers.