A.K. Goswami, J.- The eight petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus di­recting the respondents to regularise their ser­vice and to release their arrears as well as current salaries with effect from 16.09,1996. 2. The case of the petitioners is that pur­suant to an advertisement in local newspaper issued by the Education Department, Gov­ernment of Assam in the year 1991, inviting application from eligible candidates for ap­pointment as Assistant Teachers for Primary School, they had applied for the same. The Sub-Divisional Lower Primary Advisory Board that was constituted, on receipt of the applications submitted by the candidates in­cluding the petitioners, had conducted inter­views from 25.11,1991 to 03.12,1992 un­der the supervision of the respondent No.3. The petitioners were selected in such inter­view for appointment as Assistant Teachers for Primary Schools at Hojai Sub Division. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 issued appointment orders to the petitioners in vari­ous Lower Primary Schools where there were vacancies due to expiry/retirement and transfer of teachers, in the months of May, June, July and August of 1995 on a fixed pay of Rs. 900/- P.M., for a period of three months. It is, further, the case of the petitioners that they had, accordingly, joined as Assistant Teach­ers and their services were extended on 30.03.1996 until further order till a decision was taken by the Elementary Education Ad­visory Board, Hojai. 3. The petitioners have stated that they were not paid their salaries, and on the con­trary, were issued orders by which their or­ders of appointments were stayed until further order. The petitioners had approached this Court by means of a writ application, which was registered as Civil Rule No. 4946 of 1996 and this Court, by Judgment and or­der dated 31.3.1998, had disposed of the application by setting aside the orders im­pugned, as well as by giving a direction to the concerned authorities to pay their salaries. This Court also directed that the Government shall take early steps for filing up of the vacancies after re-advertisement and at the time of a regular selection, the cases of the petitioners, if applied for such posts, would be considered. However, the aforesaid direc­tion of this Court was not implemented and the petitioners are still working in their respec­tive schools in which they were initially ap­pointed. However, the aforesaid direc­tion of this Court was not implemented and the petitioners are still working in their respec­tive schools in which they were initially ap­pointed. An interview was held in pursuance of the letter dated 16.12.1998 in which all the petitioners had participated before the Sub- Divisional Screening Committee con­stituted to regularise the services of those who were appointed on ad hoc basis. 4. It is further pleaded that the respondent No. 2 had forwarded a list dated 31.8.2002 containing the particulars of Lower Primary School Teachers whose names were referred to Monoharan Committee under Hojai Sub-Division and the names of the petitioners also figured in the said list and their documents were verified by the said Committee and their appointment was found to be legal. 5. In pursuance of W.T. Message dated 18.08.2005, the respondent No. 3 had fur­nished a list for regularisation of Lower Pri­mary School Teachers by a letter dated 31.10.2005 and in such list, the names of the petitioners are there. The respondent No. 3 had also made a list dated 31.12.2005 show­ing the vacancy position of Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools up to December, 2004 and the petitioners had submitted representation for adjusting their services against the vacant posts and for releasing their salaries and arrears. It is also stated by the petitioners that two out of the 22 petitioners in Civil Rule No. 4946 of 1996, namely, Gyasuddin Barbhuiyan and Mohan Chauhan were regularised and they have also received their salaries. 6. The respondent No. 2 i.e. the Director of School Education, Assam had filed an affi­davit on the basis of a report submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hojai, pur­suant to an order dated 30.04.2009 passed by this Court. The affidavit recited that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of three months by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hojai on anticipated recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Advi­sory Board, Hojai and their services were extended till decision was taken by the Sub-Divisional Advisory Board, Hojai. The peti­tioners were not selected by the Sub- Divi­sional Level Education Advisory Board, Hojai. The services of the petitioners were discontinued since 16.09.1996. There was an Employment Notice published on 02.12.2005 for filling up of the vacancies of Assistant Teachers in Lower Primary Schools and M.E./M.V./MEM Schools and it was not known whether the petitioners had applied in response to such Notice. The services of the petitioners were discontinued since 16.09.1996. There was an Employment Notice published on 02.12.2005 for filling up of the vacancies of Assistant Teachers in Lower Primary Schools and M.E./M.V./MEM Schools and it was not known whether the petitioners had applied in response to such Notice. The Sub-Divisional Selection Board, Hojai, in its meeting dated 13.11.1999 had prepared two selection lists approving appointment in the Lower Primary Schools as Primary Teachers and while the first list consisted of 51 candidates, the sec­ond list comprised of 21 candidates and in the second list, the names of Gyasuddin Barbhuiyan and Mohan Chauhan figured and, accordingly, they were appointed as Stipendiary Teachers of Lower Primary Schools. 7. It has also been pleaded that while the Government by a W.T. Message dated 12.10.2005 directed the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hojai, to furnish a list with verifica­tion report of excess appointments between 1991 -April, 1996, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hojai, vide his letter dated 31.10.2005, forwarded a list of teachers for regularisatkm. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hojai, had conducted an enquiry in the respective Schools of the petitioners to ascertain as to whether the petitioners are still working in the Schools and found that since the date of their discontinuance from service, they were left out of their duties from the Schools. The out come of the enquiry in re­spect of all the petitioners have also been in­corporated in the affidavit. It is also pointed out that the petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No.3 were not petitioners in Civil Rule No. 4946 of 1996. 8. The writ petitioners have also filed an affidavit-in- reply to the affidavit-in-oppo-sition filed by the respondent No. 2. In such reply, the petitioners have stated that the stand of the respondent No. 2 is contrary and is not in conformity with the direction of this Court dated 31.03.1998 passed in Civil Rule No. 4946 of 1996. The report of the enquiry in respect of the petitioners as detailed in para­graph 11 of the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 was contested and controverted, stating that such report has got no basis. In support of the fact that they are still working, they have made statements and in respect of most of the peti­tioners they have also annexed certificates to show that they are still working. 9. Heard Ms. S.P. Hussain, learned coun­sel for the petitioners. In support of the fact that they are still working, they have made statements and in respect of most of the peti­tioners they have also annexed certificates to show that they are still working. 9. Heard Ms. S.P. Hussain, learned coun­sel for the petitioners. Also heard D. Saikia, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Education Department. 10. The learned counsel for the petition­ers, drawing attention of this Court to the Judgment dated 31.03.1998 passed in Civil Rule No. 4946 of. 1996, submits that this Court had held that the orders impugned in the said petition i.e. 2 orders dated 16.09.1996 and the order dated 19.09.1996, by which the services of the petitioners were stayed until further order, cannot be treated to be termination orders. By the said Judg­ment, though liberty was given to the respon­dent authorities to terminate the services of the petitioners in accordance with the relevant Rules, no termination orders have been is­sued and as a result, the petitioners are still continuing in their services. The learned coun­sel has submitted that the petitioners having been appointed pursuant to an advertisement and selection, have been rendering their ser­vice for more than 15 years against vacant posts. The learned counsel further submits that though no statements had been made in the petition, the petitioners had also received sala­ries from the date of their initial joining from the months of May to August, 1995 till 16.9.1996 and the same would be evident from the prayer made in the writ petition. She had also pointed but with reference to the statement of verification of teachers proposed to be regularised by the Government which was enclosed with the letter dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure-VI) to the writ petition, that there is no justification for not regularising the ser­vices of the petitioners. It is, accordingly, con­tended that the respondent authorities are li­able to be directed for regularisation of their services and also to make payment of arrears salaries from 16.09.1996 and also to pay the current salaries. 11. Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior standing counsel, Education Department submits I the writ petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were not petitioners in the earlier round of litigation' writ petitioners have not produced any docu­ment like select list etc. to lend legitimacy their appointment. 11. Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior standing counsel, Education Department submits I the writ petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were not petitioners in the earlier round of litigation' writ petitioners have not produced any docu­ment like select list etc. to lend legitimacy their appointment. The Annexure-I serie which are the appointment orders of the petioles, except the appointment order of the' writ petitioner No. 1, would indicate that the] petitioners were appointed on the recorame dation of the local M.L.A. and the preside of Sub-Divisional Education Advisory Council and, therefore, the very basis of their entry into service is illegal. With regard to the writ petitioner No. 1, the learned counsel submits that the order dated 30.03.2006 belies the contents of appointment order dated 25.05.1995 that there was a written recom­mendation from Sub-Divisional Educational Advisory Council for his appointment. Making a reference to the Judgment and order dated 31.03.1998 passed in Civil Rule No. 4946 of 1996, the learned counsel submits that this Court had directed for filling up the vacancies after re-advertisement, mean­ing thereby that the writ petitioners were not in service. The learned counsel also argued that reading of the aforesaid Judgment would make it clear that on the date of passing of the aforesaid Judgment, the writ petitioners were not in service. He has further contended that the Judgment and order dated 31.05.1998 makes it clear that this Court re­quired the Government to fill up the vacancies by regular selection after re-advertisement. While the liberty to terminate the ser­vices of the petitioners was given, it is not necessary in the context of the appointment orders issued to the petitioners to terminate their services, more so, when the orders impugned were not quashed and no direction for their continuance in service was passed. The writ petitioners have not been able to establish a legal right enabling them to con­tinue in service, earn their salaries and have their services regularised, he submits. 12. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in (2009) 5 SCC 65 : State of Bihar Vs. Upendro Narayari Singh & Ors., the learned standing counsel brands the petitioners as the product of spoils system, disentitling them from obtaining equitable re­lief from this Court. 12. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in (2009) 5 SCC 65 : State of Bihar Vs. Upendro Narayari Singh & Ors., the learned standing counsel brands the petitioners as the product of spoils system, disentitling them from obtaining equitable re­lief from this Court. He submits that though the facts of this case are somewhat similar to the facts narrated in (iv), (vi), (vii), (x) and (xxxviii) in the case of Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2006 (2) GLT216, in view of the fact that the prayer of the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation for continuance of their services having not been granted, it is not necessary to send this case to the Com­mittee which has been constituted to scrutinize the claim of the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that in Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar (supra), this Court had held that there is no obligation on the part of the State to pay salaries to persons who are not validly appointed. He relies on the decision in the case of Ranjana Begum Laskar & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2008 (4) GLT 278, to drive home the point that when the initial appointments are illegal and void, it is not always necessary to refer the matter to the Court appointed Committee. Relying on the decision in the case of Gov­ernment of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Brahmanandam & Ors., reported in (2008) 5 SCC 241, the learned counsel contends that appointments made in violation of the man­datory provisions of statute is illegal, which cannot be regularised and as such issuance of a writ of mandamus for regularisation of the services of the petitioners would be in vio­lation of the equality clause contained in Ar­ticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned standing counsel also makes a reference to the case of Manashi Goswami Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLT 729, to highlight that the State can­not be held liable to pay the salaries to ap­pointees made in violation of mandatory pro­visions of the statute as no legal right had ac­crued to them. He also points out that in Jagannath Kr. Dey & Ors Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLT 729, to highlight that the State can­not be held liable to pay the salaries to ap­pointees made in violation of mandatory pro­visions of the statute as no legal right had ac­crued to them. He also points out that in Jagannath Kr. Dey & Ors Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2010 (3) GLT632, this Court had wondered that unless there is an illegal employment racket, it would not have been possible to make large scale illegal ap­pointment by one person alone. He submits that in the instant case, materials on record would demonstrate that mandatory provisions of Rule 3 of the Assam Elementary Educa­tion ((Provincialisation) Rules, 1977, for short, the Rules, have been flouted with impunity. 13. A perusal of the Judgment and order dated 31.3.1998 in Civil Rule No. 4946/1996 indicates that the writ petitioners in the said case had prayed for quashing of the impugned Memo No. 1359-75 dated 16.9.1996, Memo No. D.I. (H) 147/95/1350-58 dated 16.9.1996 and Memo No. 1407-16 dated 19.9.1996 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Hojai and for directing the respondents to al­low the petitioners to continue in service as School Teachers of Primary Schools. This Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions- "The respondents shall pay to the petitioners for the period they were actually working as Assistant Teachers in the Schools subject to the verifications made by the D.I. of Schools, Hojai. The impugned orders cannot be treated as termination orders. It shall be open to the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the relevant Rules. The Government shall take early steps for filling up vacancies after re-advertise­ment. Further, at the time of regular selection, the case of the petitioners, f they applied for such posts, shall be considered and there shall be relaxation of age limit to the extent of the period they have actually worked," 14. The appointment order dated 25.5.1995 of Mr. Biswajit Dey indicates that he had been appointed on temporary basis on the written recommendation of Sub-Divi­sional Educational Advisory Council for a period of 3(three) months. The appointment order dated 25.5.1995 of Mr. Biswajit Dey indicates that he had been appointed on temporary basis on the written recommendation of Sub-Divi­sional Educational Advisory Council for a period of 3(three) months. His subsequent appointment order dated 30.1.1996 extended his service for a further period of three months with effect from 26.8.1995 to 24.11.1995, and thereafter, the order dated 30.3.1996 extended his service till receipt of the deci­sion of the Educational Advisory Council, The order also recited that it was purely temporary order and can be revoked at any time without citing any reason whatsoever and without giving any prior notice to the incum­bent. If there was recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Educational Advisory Coun­cil as reflected in the order dated 25.5.1995, it is not understood as to why the appoint­ment was extended till receipt of decision of the Sub-Divisional Educational Advisory Council. The appointment orders of Sabita Dey, Sukla Das, Kirindra Biswas, Dakshina Ranjan Das,. Motiur Rahman, Moktar Ali and Fariz Ahmed Laskar demonstrate that such appointment orders were issued on the rec­ommendation of the local MLA and/or the President of Sub-Divisional Educational Ad­visory Council, Rule 3 of the Rules provides for the stages beginning from inviting of ap­plications to the appointment of the selected candidates in order of merit as assessed by the selection board constituted there under. The select list is to be forwarded to the Di­rector of Elementary Education, Assam, by the selection board and on receipt of the same, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam is required to authenticate such select list and get it published in his own office notice board and also in that of Inspector of Schools, Dis­trict Elementary Education Officer, Deputy Inspector of Schools and also in any other manner as the Government may deem fit. The nature of the appointment orders eloquently demonstrates that such appointment orders were not issued in accordance with law by following the prescription of Rule 3 of the Rules. No other materials have been pr diced by the writ petitioners to give even as semblance of legitimacy to their appoint­ments. It is also noticeable that this Court in Civil Rule No. 4946/1996 did not pass any, order, either quashing the orders impugned] or directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service as school teachers of Primary Schools, though prayed for. It is also noticeable that this Court in Civil Rule No. 4946/1996 did not pass any, order, either quashing the orders impugned] or directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service as school teachers of Primary Schools, though prayed for. In fact, misleading and completely statements have been made by the petites that the orders impugned had been aside by this Court. 15. The pronounced judicial opinion would emerge from the authorities cited at t bar is that appointments in public service 1 to be made in strict compliance of the statutory Rules in force and if made in derogation and contravention of such Rules, the; would be void and non-est in law and corpulently conferring no legal right to such appointee to claim any salary and contrivance in service on the basis thereof, let ale regularization in service. In the context of the case, having regard to the true import of the Judgment dated 31.3.1998, not taking course to the option given to the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioners, will not change the complexion of the case to the benefit of the petitioners. When their en­tries into service is illegal and void, the asser­tion of the petitioners that they are still con­tinuing to serve the school, even assuming it to be correct, is, of no consequence. It would appear that the petitioners had, received sala­ries till 15.9.1996, i.e. immediately prior to the passing of the impugned orders staying their appointment orders. 16. The W.T. Message communicated by Memo No. EDN (KC)6/2005/119/90-A dated 12.8.2005 was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, Education De­partment to Inspector of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer/Deputy Inspec­tor of Schools requiring such officers to fur­nish list with verification report of excess ap­pointments between 1991 - April, 1996 in their respective Districts/Sub-Divisions, posi­tively by 18.8.2005, to be initialed by them. The said W.T. Message is also silent with re­gard to any regularization proposed to be made by the Government. Annexure-VI let­ter dated 31.10.2005 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hojai, however, strangely and inexplicably recited that state­ments of verification of L.R teachers are filled up as per prescribed pro-forma for the pur­pose of reguiarization by the Government. It is also mentionable that date of the W.T. Message was wrongly recorded as 18.8.2005 instead of 12.08.2005. Annexure-VI let­ter dated 31.10.2005 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hojai, however, strangely and inexplicably recited that state­ments of verification of L.R teachers are filled up as per prescribed pro-forma for the pur­pose of reguiarization by the Government. It is also mentionable that date of the W.T. Message was wrongly recorded as 18.8.2005 instead of 12.08.2005. It is clear that there was no move by the Government to regularise the services of the petitioners, as contended by them. If anything, it only brings out the fact the petitioners were part of excess appointments made between 1991 -April, 1996. 17. For the reasons and discussions afore­said, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services and claim of salary is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No costs.