JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The common relief prayed for in this batch of petitions is the invalidation of the orders dated 26.12.2006 passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, disallowing the continuance of the Petitioners in service as Assistant Teachers in different Middle English Schools of the District of Nalbari and for their reinstatement together with all consequential service benefits. The basic framework of facts as well as the issues raised in all these petitions being the same these have been heard analogously and this adjudication would answer the points urged. 2. I have heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the official Respondents. 3. The Petitioners have pleaded to be eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Middle English/Lower Primary English Schools and to have been initially inducted in different Middle English Schools ('the M.E. Schools') in the District of Nalbari of the State by the respective Management Committees in exercise of the powers conferred by the circular No. (I)693/2001/12 dated 6.3.2002 by the Government of Assam in the Education (E) Department. These recruitments, the Petitioners have insisted were made to meet the crisis of shortage of teachers in the Schools with the knowledge and approval of the concerned departmental authority, i.e., District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari. Though their initial appointments were on honorary basis they were eventually adjusted against retired/death vacancies by the same state authority till their regular appointments against vacant posts. The adjustment orders indicated that the arrangement made thereby was temporary but impelled by academic interest of the schools. On being so adjusted, the Petitioners were granted the pay scale in the orders to that effect and were released monthly salary in accordance therewith. They have maintained that in recognition of their status GPF Accounts were opened being approved by the Accountant General of Assam (A&E) and their service books were duly initiated. While they continued as such, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, published an advertisement in the issue dated 31.8.2005 in the local daily Janasangyog inviting applications for filling up of 5375 posts of vacant posts of Assistant Teachers. The advertisement, inter alia, recited that the candidates equipped with the orders of the court requiring the state to consider their cases at the time of regular appointment would also have to apply. The advertisement, inter alia, recited that the candidates equipped with the orders of the court requiring the state to consider their cases at the time of regular appointment would also have to apply. The Petitioners offered their candidature and participated in the interview as scheduled and the concerned District Level Selection Committee selected some of them in its meeting held on 25.2.2006 and recommended them for permanent/regular appointment against the posts held by them. 4. While the matter rested at that, the salary of the Petitioners was suddenly withheld on the ground that an enquiry had been started to verify the validity or otherwise of their appointments. The Petitioners were subsequent thereto, by notices issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, asked to show cause as to why their appointments would not be treated as illegal and were thereby required to produce the original copy of their appointment letters and other relevant materials in support thereof. The show cause notice dated 8.9.2006 referred to an enquiry which according to the aforementioned State authority disclosed that their appointments had been made without valid sanctioned posts and that the same as well as their adjustments made later on were in violation of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 ('the Rules'). The Petitioners accordingly submitted their written explanation asserting that they had been validly appointed by the Management Committees of their Schools with the approval of the District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari, and were subsequent thereto adjusted against vacant posts. They also iterated about their selection by the District Level Selection Board, Nalbari, for regular appointment in the process initiated by the advertisement dated 31.8.2005 and insisted that their appointments as well as adjustment were not in violation of the Rules as alleged. 5. As in spite of the written explanation submitted by them their salary was not released, the Petitioners submitted representations before the departmental Minister seeking his intervention for redress. It was thereafter that the impugned orders were passed directing the heads of the institutions involved to disallow the Petitioners to continue therein with immediate effect. The Petitioners have not only assailed the validity of these orders but also have questioned the tenability of the enquiry as well as the report acted upon by the State authorities in terminating their services. 6. The Petitioners have not only assailed the validity of these orders but also have questioned the tenability of the enquiry as well as the report acted upon by the State authorities in terminating their services. 6. The Respondents in their affidavit in WP(C) 910/2007 affirmed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, have averred that pursuant to the Government notification No. AEE/661/2002/1 dated 26.6.2006 a three man enquiry committee was constituted which identified 436 persons who had obtained illegal/irregular appointments and had been drawing salary illegally in absence of valid sanctioned posts in different Lower Primary/Upper Primary Schools of the State. In view of the above, the Government vide letter No. AEE/877/2006/38 dated 24.8.2006 directed the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, to terminate the services of these 436 teachers. Accordingly the said authority issued show cause notice on 8.9.2006 to these teachers requiring them to submit their replies with all supporting documents defending their appointments. According to the said Respondents, the replies submitted by the Petitioners who were included within these 436 teachers on scrutiny were determined to be unsatisfactory and their appointments having been adjudged to be in violation of the Rules and not against valid sanctioned posts, the impugned orders were passed. The affidavit also disclosed initiation of appropriate departmental action against the erring officials. 7. The Petitioners in their reply while reiterating their averments in the writ petition denied the imputation of illegal appointments and asserted that the impugned orders of termination have been passed without making any proper verification or enquiry as required. They claimed legal and equitable right to continue in their respective posts pending their regular appointment on the basis of their selection. 8. Mr. Mahanta in the background of the above pleadings has persuasively urged that the Managing Committees of the Petitioners' schools having been duly empowered by the circular dated 6.3.2002 issued by the Government to select and appoint teachers, their initial induction on honorary basis can by no means be construed to be illegal and they having been eventually adjusted against valid sanctioned posts by the concerned appointing authority, i.e., District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari, the termination of their services is per se arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory and is liable to be adjudged as such. While admitting that the appointment of the Petitioners by the Managing Committee of their schools wore not preceded by any selection as contemplated by the Rules, the learned senior counsel has maintained that they having been ultimately recommended for regular appointment by the District Level Selection Board, Nalbari, in the process initiated by the advertisement dated 31.8.2005 they ought not to have been ousted from service by overlooking the same. Mr. Mahanta has argued that having regard to the selection of the Petitioners for regular appointment in terms of the Rules by the concerned District Level Selection Committee, they have a right to continue in their respective posts till a final decision in the related process is taken and therefore the termination of their services on the basis of a purported enquiry report is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law and on facts. While contending that the stoppage of the Petitioners' salary since July, 2006, has visited them with indescribable distress, the learned senior counsel has pleaded for judicial intervention by interfering with the impugned orders. 9. Mr. Pathak per contra has contended that not only the circular dated 6.3.2002 lacks in statutory force, the empowerment of the Managing Committee of the Schools comprehended therein cannot be permissibly stretched to supplant the prescriptions of the Rules pertaining to appointment of teachers. Further no approval of the State Level Empowered Committee ('SLEC') enjoined to be an essential precondition for valid appointment at the relevant point of time had also been obtained. The learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that since 6.2.1999 in the face of a ban on appointments any approval of the SLEC is also inconceivable. According to Mr. Pathak, therefore, the initial appointment of the Petitioners by the Managing Committee of their schools were obviously illegal and the adjustments effected by the District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari similarly were unauthorized and non est in law. While contending that the advertisement in question had in fact been issued on 2.12.2005, the learned Standing Counsel has urged that the claimed empanelment of the Petitioners per se would not entitle them to regular appointment as the Rules in the meantime having been amended vide the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) (Amendment) Rules, 2005 ('the Amended Rules') it needs to be scrutinized as to whether the process undertaken had been in observance of the amended provisions. While pointing out that in view of the restraint orders of this Court passed in WP(C) 4797/2005, Shri Hareswar Talukdar and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. and WP(C) 4798/05, Shri Pradip Kalita and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. no appointment on the basis of the above selection as claimed by the Petitioners is for the present feasible, Mr. Pathak has urged that the minutes of the meeting of the District Level Selection Committee dated 25.2.2006 being prima facie demonstrative of the fact that Rule 5(6) of the Amended Rules had not been complied with, the Petitioners' reliance thereon to assail the termination of their services is misconceived. 10. This Court has extended its cautious consideration to the rival pleadings and the arguments advanced. The admitted case of the Petitioners is that their initial appointment as Assistant Teachers on honorary basis in their Schools had been by the Managing Committees thereof in exercise of their power to that effect as contained in the circular dated 6.3.2002. This circular bearing No. A(I)E 693/2001/12 embodying the powers and functions of School Managing Committee of the primary and upper primary schools as envisaged in the notification PMA(SSA)/22/2002/5 dated 15.5.2002 of the Government of Assam in the Education (P) Department is not a statutory instrument so as to supercede the Rules then in force. Clause 2 of the circular dated 6.3.2002 empowers the Managing Committee to select candidates for appointment as teachers and staff of the School as per the Rules and Regulation framed by the Government. It is thus apparent on a plain reading of the said circular that the power of the Managing Committee as envisioned therein was subservient to the Rules and unmistakably conditioned thereby. The Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India detailed the procedure for selection and appointment of elementary school teachers of the State authorizing the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education to be constituted by the Government to conduct the related process. Visibly the Management Committees of the said schools were not assigned any role in the exercise and, therefore, were not recognized by the Rules to be an entity to assume any authority in that regard. Visibly the Management Committees of the said schools were not assigned any role in the exercise and, therefore, were not recognized by the Rules to be an entity to assume any authority in that regard. Judged from that point of view, the Management Committees of the Schools as per the circular dated 6.3.2002 at the most could be said to have been authorized to identify candidates for their eventual appointment in terms of the Rules. Such authorization, however, cannot be construed to be an endowment of the prerogative and dominion of the Sub-Divisional Level Education Board for Elementary Education conceived by the Rules for selection of candidates for appointment as teachers in the elementary schools of the state. Viewed, from that perspective, the appointment of the Petitioners by the Managing Committees of the Schools as honorary teachers cannot be equated with the appointments under the Rules. Not only there is no semblance of any selection process undertaken by the Managing Committees before such appointments, it has been unreservedly admitted on their behalf as well. The initial induction of the Petitioners being not in accordance with the Rules their adjustments by the District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari, claimed to be against valid sanctioned posts, in the opinion of this Court, would not replenish the deficiency and validate their appointments by the Managing Committee so as to confer them with the right to continue in the said posts. The circular dated 6.3.2002 in the teeth of the rules cannot be interpreted to be investitive of an absolute power of appointment in the Managing Committee of the Schools referred to therein. 11. The orders of adjustment divulged that thereby the Petitioners who were serving teachers had been accommodated against vacant posts till their regular appointments. Apart from the fact that the arrangement as contemplated thereby is not a legally recognized/approved mode of appointment in public office as a substitute of the procedure enjoined by the rules, the same does not vest the incumbent concerned with any inviolable right to continue in the post concerned. The adjustment as contemplated to be of any definitive relevance is to be preceded by an appointment by following a procedure prescribed by law albeit, may be wanting in full and rigorous compliance thereof. Adjustment cannot be adopted to be a method of recruitment in total disregard of the prescriptions of a statutory Rule. The adjustment as contemplated to be of any definitive relevance is to be preceded by an appointment by following a procedure prescribed by law albeit, may be wanting in full and rigorous compliance thereof. Adjustment cannot be adopted to be a method of recruitment in total disregard of the prescriptions of a statutory Rule. The adjustments of the Petitioner in the above factual premise, therefore, do not confer on them any legal or equitable right to continue in their post. Receipt of salary in a pay scale for some period and initiation of provident fund accounts and service books per se would not validate their appointment, there being no estoppel against law. Noticeably in the adjustment orders of some of the Petitioners in WP(C) 3185/2005, the fact of their initial appointment against non-existent post has been recorded. The plea raised on that behalf to the contrary therefore does not appeal for acceptance. 12. The enquiry report available on records reveal that the Petitioners amongst others as named therein under the Pub Nalbari Block were on scrutiny had been founded to have been adjusted without the approval of higher authority and that they had been working in the schools on honorary basis as per the order of the then District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari. The report, however, does not disclose as to whether their original appointments were made on selection by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board due to non-receipt of the records pertaining to Selection. Though the Petitioners have sought to draw some initiative from this fact, in absence of any assertion on their part that their initial appointment had been preceded by a selection under the Rules conducted by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board this endeavour is of no avail. The conclusions recorded in the report as it discloses are based on contemporaneous official records submitted by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Pub Nalbari Block. Incidentally this report is not under challenge in the present proceedings. 13. Admittedly prior to the passing of the impugned orders, the Petitioners were to put to notice of the grounds on which their appointments were construed to be illegal. By the show cause notice they were apprised that they had been appointed in upper primary schools after their provincialisation without a valid post and that their appointments and adjustments were in violation of the rules. By the show cause notice they were apprised that they had been appointed in upper primary schools after their provincialisation without a valid post and that their appointments and adjustments were in violation of the rules. The termination orders reveal that the same were based on the report of the enquiry committee and on the consideration that their appointments were in violation of the Rules and not against valid sanctioned posts. 14. In the conspectus of facts unfolded hereinabove, the impugned decision in the opinion of this Court, is not liable to be proscribed as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory or unconstitutional. The selection of the Petitioners as claimed by them for regular appointment in the process initiated by the advertisement dated 2.12.2005 thus per se does not entitle them to continue in service. Moreover, in view of the restraint orders of this Court as observed hereinabove, their appointment even if their selection is valid is not possible in praosenti. Further as pointed out on behalf of the State Respondents, no final decision has yet been taken to act upon the selection process in view of the Amended Rules. The claim of the Petitioners to continue in service pending the final outcome of the said selection process in the face of their invalid induction in service thus cannot be acceded to. 15. In the light of the above determination, the petitions are construed to be lacking in merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed