The above two civil rules involve similar facts and, therefore, these are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 2. By order dated 15.2.85 of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Guwahati the petitioner in CR 5682 of 1997 was appointed in the non plan post of Assistant Teacher in Ulubari HS School in the Intermediate scale of pay against the vacancy due to up-gradation of another incumbent (Annexure I). Petitioner being the senior most teacher of the school was upgraded temporarily to Graduate post in the vacancy caused due to another incumbent deputed to B. Ed training (Annexure II), while the original post of the petitioner was kept vacant. Again, by order dated 4.3.94 of the Inspector of Schools, KDC, Guwahati (Annexure IV) the petitioner was upgraded to act as Graduate teacher in the said school on ad hoc basis for a period of three months or till the post is filled up by a selected candidate whichever is earlier. Consequent to this order dated 4.3.94, as no order for retention of the post of the petitioner was issued, petitioner did not receive her salary since May, 1996. 3. The petitioner in CR 1070 of 1998 was also appointed as Assistant Teacher in Mangaldoi Vidyapith High School in the Intermediate scale of pay vide order dated 17.3.92 of the Inspector of Schools, Darrang District Circle (Annexure I). The petitioner was appointed in a non plan post caused due to upgradation of another incumbent. By order dated 2.5.92 (Annexure 2) petitioner was transferred and upgraded as Additional Science Graduate Teacher against a sanctioned post. Again, by order dated 27.3.97 (Annexure 5) petitioner was transferred to Mangaldoi Vidyapith High School in her own grade and scale. Petitioner joined the school and she was informed that she would not be paid her salary as there was no order for retention of her new post. Consequently, petitioner is not getting her salary from 1.4.97. 4. Petitioners filed representation before the concerned authority to allow them to continue in the upgraded post originally held by them but, as nothing has been done petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Consequently, petitioner is not getting her salary from 1.4.97. 4. Petitioners filed representation before the concerned authority to allow them to continue in the upgraded post originally held by them but, as nothing has been done petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were initially appointed in the Intermediate scale of pay against non plan permanent posts and they were upgraded to the post of Graduate teacher against permanent vacancy and, therefore, their services cannot be converted to plan scheme as has been done in the instant cases. It is also submitted that the entire action by which the petitioners have been given fresh appointment to the new posts under plan scheme is mala fide and deviation from the rule and procedure under service law as the petitioners were originally appointed in regular sanctioned posts o£ Assistant teacher in Under Graduate scale of pay. Learned counsel for the parties have referred the notification dated 30.12.93 under No. B (3) S 888/93/10~A issued by the Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Education Department by which all the existing posts of Assistant teacher in Intermediate scale of pay of Rs.1,185-2,395 PM with graduate incident dents of provincialized High/Higher Secondary Schools are upgraded to the post of Assistant teacher in Graduate scale of pay of Rs. 1,375-3,375 PM from the date of issue of the order. The said order was passed after getting concurrence from the Finance Department vide order No. Fin (HI) 878/93 dated 16.8.93. The claim of the petitioners is that by virtue of the said notification they are entitled to graduate scale of pay in the original non plan post. 6. Pursuant to the order dated 8.6.98 (in CR 5682 of 1997), the Director of Secondary Education, Assam and the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup appeared personally before the Court on 16.6.98 and informed the Court that a part of the outstanding salary has been released to the petitioner and process has been started to restore the petitioner to her original post which she has been holding on regular basis since 1985, with up-gradation to the Graduate post. 7. 7. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that while the petitioners were serving in their respective schools the notification dated 30.12.93 was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department and, therefore, no order of retention for the posts of the petitioners was required and the salary become payable at the end of every month as admissible under the Rules. That, accordingly petitioners were drawing the salary in the Graduate scale of pay but thereafter their salary wag withheld on the alleged ground that their up-gradation was made in the plan scheme and there was no retention order from the department. It is submitted that this action on the part of the respondent authority is contrary to the notification dated 30.12.93. 8. From the above discussions it transpires that the schools in which petitioners were appointed are provincialised schools and they were upgraded as Graduate teachers in non plan posts and the respondents have withheld their salary on the ground of there being no retention order, in my view the conversion of the posts of the petitioners from non plan to plan is illegal and have been done without applying mind. Accordingly, I hold that this action of the respondent authority is mala fide, arbitrary and have been done on extraneous consideration, which resulted in discrimination without authority of law in the matter of public employment. Apparently, petitioners were upgraded to graduate scale of pay under non plan scheme and they were drawing salary regularly under the said scheme but by the impugned orders their posts have been changed from non plan to plan posts without any legal authority to accommodate some other persons. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one post in Mangaldoi Girls HS School and two posts in Ulubari HS School are lying vacant and considering the seniority and eligibility of the petitioners they can be accommodated against those posts with retrospective effect. Admittedly, petitioners have been serving against a substantive sanctioned posts. 10. In view of the above discussions, I direct the respondents to restore the petitioners to their original posts in the non plan with all benefits on the basis of the notification dated 30.12.93 and pay the salary regularly. 11. Mr. Admittedly, petitioners have been serving against a substantive sanctioned posts. 10. In view of the above discussions, I direct the respondents to restore the petitioners to their original posts in the non plan with all benefits on the basis of the notification dated 30.12.93 and pay the salary regularly. 11. Mr. KH Choudhury, learned Govt Advocate produced a photocopy of the order issued by the Inspector of Schools, KDC dated 19th June, 98 (Memo No. E l/CC/5682/97/ 2872-77) which indicates that in pursuance of High Court's order, the petitioner in CR 5682 of 1997 was adjusted against her original post of non-plan head with effect from 1.6.96. Along with this order, statement of pay bill (Plan) from 1.6.97 to 31.5.98 has also been annexed. 12. For the foregoing discussions, the writ petitions are allowed and disposed of. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.