JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. By way of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint him as an Assistant teacher against a vacant post in any provincialised High School in the district of Nalbari on the basis of the select list dated 04-01-1995. The writ petition was instituted in the year 2000. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he participated in a selection process for appointment in the post of Assistant teacher in High Schools of the State pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1991. Though the advertisement was for 200 posts for the entire State, district wise or constituency wise vacancies were not indicated. The selections were held in the year 1994 and the select list was published on 04-01-1995. Petitioner's name appeared at Serial No. 34 in the select list prepared in respect of Dharmapur Constituency in the district of Nalbari. 3. A number of writ petitions were filed, being Civil Rule No. 5216/1996 and other cases, challenging the appointments made on the basis of the aforesaid selection in respect of Dharmapur Constituency. The basic ground of challenge was that persons outside the select list as well as persons who were below in the select list were appointed whereas better placed candidates in the select list were not appointed. In the said batch of writ petitions, the Education Department, Government of Assam took the stand that in the Dharmapur Constituency, there were 22 vacancies. 12 persons who did not deserve appointment because of their low merit position, were appointed. One more person from outside the select list was also appointed. By order dated 27-08-1997, the said writ petitions were closed by directing the Education Department to cancel the appointments of the persons who were illegally appointed and thereafter to confer appointments to the candidates strictly in accordance with their merit position in the select list. The Court further directed that if any better placed candidate in the select list declined the offer of appointment, such offer should be made to the next eligible candidate. 4. Though the aforesaid order dated 27-08-1997 was challenged in appeal, being Writ Appeal No. 500 of 1997, the same was however dismissed on 12-05-2000. 5. The Court further directed that if any better placed candidate in the select list declined the offer of appointment, such offer should be made to the next eligible candidate. 4. Though the aforesaid order dated 27-08-1997 was challenged in appeal, being Writ Appeal No. 500 of 1997, the same was however dismissed on 12-05-2000. 5. Contending that the petitioner's case was overlooked and that the aforesaid order of the Court was not complied with, the present writ petition was filed. 6. Proceedings were initiated in this writ petition on 26-09-2000 when the case was admitted for hearing and the relevant records were called for. 7. On 05-06-2007, this Court while hearing the writ petition found that though the Education Department had earlier taken the stand that there were 22 vacancies in respect of Dharmapur Constituency, the Department subsequently took the stand that the number of vacancies would be 42 as 42 appointments were made. Out of these, 28 were identified to have been wrongly appointed and their appointments were directed to be terminated. 28 persons from the select list were found to be eligible for appointment against the above terminated vacancies. Consequently, the Department issued order dated 28-12-1998 to the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari to appoint the 28 persons identified. However, 14 of the freshly appointed candidates did not join. The Standing Counsel informed the Court that those 14 candidates could not join because of interim orders of this Court passed in the writ petitions filed by the incumbents. It was further submitted by the Standing Counsel that the concerned incumbents who had obtained interim orders from the Court were regularized and, subsequently on their prayer, the writ petitions were closed. The Court, therefore, passed the following order: From what has been stated by the learned departmental counsel the position that emerges is that persons whose appointments were directed to be cancelled and in fact were cancelled were regularised in service by the Government during the currency of the interim order passed in the writ petitions filed by such persons challenging their cancellations. The State, therefore, will be required to explain how this could have been done alongwith the details of the writ petitions in which such interim orders were passed. The State, therefore, will be required to explain how this could have been done alongwith the details of the writ petitions in which such interim orders were passed. If, however, the records reflect that the 14 persons or any of them voluntarily did not accept the offer of appointment, the State has to show that the offer of appointment was given to the next eligible candidate in order of merit as per the merit list in terms of the order of this Court dated 27-08-1997, as noticed above. 8. Subsequently, the Department by filing an affidavit stated that out of the 28 illegally appointed teachers, whose services were required to be terminated by virtue of the order dated 27-08-1997 passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 5216/1996 and other connected cases, services of two teachers were terminated. Out of the remaining 26 teachers, 23 were found working on the strength of orders of this Court. The status of the remaining 3 teachers was stated to be under verification. 9. On a scrutiny by the Court, it was found that the Court orders on the basis of which the 23 teachers were working, whose services were required to be terminated in terms of order dated 27-08-1997 passed in Civil Rule No. 5216/1996 and other connected cases, were interim orders. Those cases were, however, found to have been disposed of in the meantime whereby the interim orders passed earlier stood obliterated. The Department was therefore required to take steps to ensure compliance of the Court's order dated 27-08-1997. 10. In the course of the proceedings, the Court also found that the then Inspector of Schools, Nalbari had issued 11 other orders of appointment, which were prima facie found by the Court to be wholly unauthorized. 11. The Court passed a detailed order on 13-12-2007. While observing that implementation of Court's order dated 27-08-1997 in order to determine the entitlement of the petitioner would continue to be monitored by the Court, a subsidiary question arose which engaged the attention of the Court. The issue was the manner in which the then Inspector of Schools made those 11 illegal appointments. While observing that implementation of Court's order dated 27-08-1997 in order to determine the entitlement of the petitioner would continue to be monitored by the Court, a subsidiary question arose which engaged the attention of the Court. The issue was the manner in which the then Inspector of Schools made those 11 illegal appointments. After giving opportunity of hearing to the Inspector of Schools and on due consideration, this Court passed the following order: (i) Office to register a separate suo motu writ petition in respect of the said matter and place on record of the said suo motu writ petition a copy of this order. (ii) The Superintendent of Police, Nalbari will ensure that an investigation is made with regard to the detailed facts and circumstances surrounding the appointments made by Mr. Anowar Hussain, Inspector of Schools, Nalbari and submit a report to this Court regarding commission of any offence in connection with the said appointments. The said report will be placed before the Court in the suo motu writ petition ordered to be registered. The Superintendent of Police, Nalbari is further directed to ensure that all connected records in connection with the appointments in question are seized and kept in proper custody. The above direction has become necessary in view of the circumstances surrounding the appointments as noted and the copies of the records placed before the Court by Mr. Hussain alongwith his affidavit dated 19th November, 2007, particularly the copies of the applications allegedly submitted by the persons appointed which appear to be in 2 or 3 similar handwriting patterns. (iii) As resort to the orders of the Court dated 04-12-2003 in W.P. (C). No. 4963/99 has been made to confer legitimacy to the appointments in question without any justification and such unjustified resort to the orders of the Court may have the effect of adversely affecting the dignity and majesty of the Institution i.e. the High Court, a suo motu criminal contempt proceeding be registered against Mr. Anowar Hussain. (iv) As various Government orders and Office Memoranda laying down the proper course of action in making appointments in public office have been flouted by Mr. Anowar Hussain while making the appointments in question, the State Government is directed to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Hussain forthwith. Anowar Hussain. (iv) As various Government orders and Office Memoranda laying down the proper course of action in making appointments in public office have been flouted by Mr. Anowar Hussain while making the appointments in question, the State Government is directed to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Hussain forthwith. As the said proceeding will eventually centre around the records maintained in the office of the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari and Mr. Hussain as the charged officer should not have any opportunity to deal with the said records, the Court directs that Mr. Hussain be placed under suspension during the pendency of the said proceeding which may be brought to its logical conclusion, by the State authority as expeditiously as possible. This direction again has become necessary as till date the State authority has done nothing in this regard inspite of efflux of a sufficiently long period of time. 12. In the hearing on 11-02-2011, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the Education Department was in the process of implementing the judgment of this Court dated 27-08-1997 and that there was every likelihood that the petitioner may get his appointment in due course of time. As the Departmental Counsel was not fully conversant with the facts of the case, the hearing had to be deferred after awarding cost. 13. On 10-05-2011, this Court directed the Department to file additional affidavit on various aspects mentioned in the said order. Pursuant to such order, additional affidavit was filed by the Departmental Commissioner and Secretary Shri Lall Chand Singhi, IAS on 03-06-2011. It is stated in the said affidavit that there were 42 numbers of vacancies in Dharmapur Constituency. 29 appointments were made illegally, 9 out of those appointments were made in violation of the merit position in the select list which included candidates at serial Nos. 35, 40, 45, 48, 57 and 61 (all belonging to the general category like the petitioner) and the other 20 persons were appointed from outside the select list. Out of the 29 illegal appointees, 14 are presently in service in Nalbari district. Moreover, 2 persons whose services were terminated, are presently in service after obtaining stay of their termination from this Court. The relevant portion of the affidavit is as under: 8. Out of the 29 illegal appointees, 14 are presently in service in Nalbari district. Moreover, 2 persons whose services were terminated, are presently in service after obtaining stay of their termination from this Court. The relevant portion of the affidavit is as under: 8. That out of 42 (forty two) vacancies in Dharmapur Constituency, 29 (twenty nine) appointments were made in violation of the said 1982 Rules and out of that 9 (nine) persons namely - Deepak Deka, Basanta Baishya, Nripen Deka, Mathur Sharma, Usha Goswami, Gulzar Hussain, Kalpa Nath Talukdar, Monorama Bhagawati & Kanaklata Patowary were appointed in violation of merit position of the Select List and the other 20 (twenty) persons namely - Kanteswar Barman, Jagadish Deka, Niima Talukdar, Sanatan Dutta, Konika Bhatta, Upen Talukdar, Prabhash Kukar Sharma, Kanak Talukdar, Ajit Kumar Deka, Jamini Barman, Golap Hussain, Jiten Kumar Sharma, Ishrak Hussain, Bipul Kumar Barman, Mahendra Deka, Babul Sharma, Abani Talukdar, Sewali Deka, Bhaben Talukdar & Hirendra Nath Sharma were appointed from outside the Select List. 8(A). That from those 29 (twenty nine) persons of Dharmapur Constituency, 14 (fourteen) persons namely - Deepak Deka, Basanta Baishya, Nripen Deka, Mathur Sharma, Kanteswar Barman, Sanatan Dutta, Konika Bhatta, Prabhash Kukar Sharma, Ajit Kumar Deka, Jamini Barman, Golap Hussain, Jiten Kumar Sharma, Bipul Kumar Barman and Abani Talukdar are presently in service; 4 (four) persons namely - Usha Goswami, Monorama Bhagawati, Bhaben Talukdar and Hirendra Nath Sharma are not in service and further, Kanaklata Patowary had been transferred to Kamrup district. Moreover, 10 (ten) persons namely-Gulzar Hussain, Kalpa Nath Talukdar, Jagadish Deka, Niima Talukdar, Upen Talukdar, Kanak Talukdar, Ishrak Hussain, Mahendra Deka, Babul Sharma and Sewali Deka were terminated from service in October 2008. However, out of the said 10 terminated teachers 2 (two) persons namely - Kalpa Nath Talukdar and Ishrak Hussain again obtained stay of their termination orders from this Hon'ble Court and are presently in service. 14. The affidavit further states as under: 11. That in the meanwhile, the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari district Circle, Nalbari vide his Memo Nos. CC-I/NAL/29(part)/2011/399-403 to CC-I/NAL/29(part-I)/2011/470-474 dated 20-05-2011 issued fresh show cause notices to 6 (six) and 8 (eight), total 14 (fourteen) Nos. 14. The affidavit further states as under: 11. That in the meanwhile, the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari district Circle, Nalbari vide his Memo Nos. CC-I/NAL/29(part)/2011/399-403 to CC-I/NAL/29(part-I)/2011/470-474 dated 20-05-2011 issued fresh show cause notices to 6 (six) and 8 (eight), total 14 (fourteen) Nos. of such undeserving persons presently working as Assistant Teachers of Barama and Patacharkuchi Constituencies respectively, who are still in service, directing them to show cause, within seven days of receipt of the same, as to why their services shall not be terminated as they were appointed in violation of the merit in the select list (i.e. Rules). The concerned Headmasters of the Schools received those Show Cause Notices on behalf of the concerned incumbents. 12. That as different teachers and students organizations has started their agitational programmes like-picketing, office lock out etc. w.e.f. 21-05-2011 in protest against the steps taken for termination of undeserving teachers in Nalbari District, Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari could not serve the Show Cause Notices to other underserving persons who are working in Barkhetri, Dharmapur and Nalbari Constituencies of Nalbari District. As such, the Inspector concerned sent those Show Cause Notices to the other 64 (sixty four) [32 Barkhetri + 14 Dharmapur + 18 Nalbari] undeserving Assistant Teachers (presently in service) of said three Constituencies vide Speed Post dated 27-05-2011 to the concerned Headmasters of the Schools. Again on 30-05-2011, the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, by special messenger, sent 4 (four) Show Cause Notices to Sarat Kumar Baishya of Barama Constituency, Jurat Jamal of Barkhetri Constituency, Nur Islam and Nripen Barua of Nalbari District. 13. That in the meantime, pursuant to the Orders of this Hon'ble Court that were passed earlier, the deponent gave personal hearing to the Appellants of Writ Appeals No. 500, 529, 598 and 652 of 1997; all together 14 (fourteen) underserved candidates from Barkhetri Constituency namely - Premananda Misra, Kohinur Begum, Baktoza Ahmed, Shahnur Ali, Tapan Sharma, Dibakar Talukdar, Dilip Talukdar, Rina Deka, Inam Ali, Azahar Ali Ahmed, Ramizuddin Sarkar, Abdul Rejak and Alimuddin Ahmed respectively on 30-04-2011. After hearing them and perusing the records, the deponent as the Commissioner & Secretary Education (Secondary) Department, Government of Assam vide its Order under Memo No. ELC/WA/500/97/585 dated 27-05-2011 came to the conclusion that those persons failed to prove their legality and validity of their appointment and failed to justify their contention of being continued in service and their selection & appointments have been found to be illegal and directed the authority to terminate them from service. 14. That the deponent states that after considering the replies of the concerned persons to whom Show Cause Notices have been issued by the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari as stated above, the authority concerned will pass necessary order as per law. 15. That the deponent states that the District level authority at this stage could not provide information about any case that are pending before this Hon'ble Court by which the underserved persons are continuing in service, except for Kalpa Nath Talukdar and Ishrak Hussain of Dharmapur Constituency, who were terminated in October 2008. But this Hon'ble Court in writ petition as well as in writ appeals upheld the termination of similarly persons. 15. Heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. 16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as persons placed below the petitioner in the select list have been appointed, petitioner should be given appointment. Though the select list is of the year 1995, petitioner's claim still survives because of the illegalities committed and in view of various orders passed by the Court. Departmental Counsel on the other hand submits that though the anomalies have been identified and corrective steps taken, picture has not yet crystallized. Therefore, the Department is unable to offer appointment to the petitioner. 17. The submissions made have been considered. 18. From the facts narrated above, what is seen is that even after lapse of 12 years since the filing of the writ petition and after several orders passed by this Court, a clear picture is yet to emerge. 19. As already noticed, though the advertisement was for 200 posts, the number of vacancies in respect of Dharmapur Constituency was not mentioned. In the earlier round of litigation, the stand of the Department was that there were 22 vacancies. 19. As already noticed, though the advertisement was for 200 posts, the number of vacancies in respect of Dharmapur Constituency was not mentioned. In the earlier round of litigation, the stand of the Department was that there were 22 vacancies. Subsequently, in the present round of litigation, the number of vacancies have been identified as 42 and 42 appointments have been made. As per the latest affidavit of the Department dated 03-06-2011, out of 42, 29 appointments made were illegal. Out of those 29 illegal appointees, 16 are presently in service, two on orders of the Court. It is stated that show-cause notices have been issued to those 14 Assistant teachers presently serving in Dharmapur Constituency without orders of the Court and that on receipt of their replies and after considering the same, the Inspector of Schools will pass necessary orders as per law. It is further stated that only two cases are pending before this Court on the basis of which two of the undeserving persons are continuing in service. 20. The situation which thus emerges is still not very clear and is quite hazy As noticed above, out of the 42 vacancies, 29 have been filled up illegally, which means 13 were appointed as per the select list. As can be seen from the above, 16 out of the 29 illegally appointed teachers are presently in service out of whom two are serving on the strength of orders of the Court. In respect of those 14 (16-2), show-cause notices were issued and as per the departmental affidavit dated 03-06-2011, steps would be taken shortly for passing necessary orders in those cases. That was more than one year ago. 21. Thus, it appears 26 selected candidates are now in position (13 appointed earlier and 13 appointed subsequently). 16 out of 29 illegally appointed teachers are still serving, which as can be seen from the affidavit dated 03-06-2011 includes two persons below the petitioner in the select list at serial Nos. 35 (Sri Mathur Sarma) and 48 (Sri Kalpa Nath Talukdar). That makes it 42 posts in Dharmapur Constituency (26+16). As 14 of them are not protected by any orders of Court, show cause notices were issued to them, the outcome of which is however not known. If those 14 persons are removed from service, the petitioner being at serial No. 34 has a fair chance of getting appointment. 22. That makes it 42 posts in Dharmapur Constituency (26+16). As 14 of them are not protected by any orders of Court, show cause notices were issued to them, the outcome of which is however not known. If those 14 persons are removed from service, the petitioner being at serial No. 34 has a fair chance of getting appointment. 22. While the order of this Court dated 27-08-1997 has to be complied with and has to be taken to its logical conclusion, the Court cannot also be unmindful of the fact that the claim of the petitioner is based on his selection in the select list dated 04-01-1995 which is now more than 17 years old. 23. Though the petitioner has fought a grim legal battle for all these long years and in the process has helped the cause of justice in as much as this litigation has been instrumental in bringing to light gross illegalities which were deeply entrenched in the Education Department. However, in-spite of that, perhaps the time has come to close the present proceeding. 24. Therefore, on a totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view the above background, the writ petition is disposed off by directing the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education (Secondary) Department to specifically deal with the claim of the petitioner in the following manner: Since the petitioner's position is at Serial No. 34 of the select list dated 04-01-1995, it shall be ascertained as to whether all the candidates upto Serial No. 33 have been appointed or offered appointment. If such offer of appointment has been made but not accepted, which would bring the case of the petitioner within the 42 vacancies of Dharmapur Constituency in the district of Nalbari, offer of appointment should be made to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within four months from today and the petitioner be informed accordingly. 25. For the efforts of the petitioner and the unwavering manner in which he has pursued this case which has led to unearthing of large scale illegalities in the Education Department, the Court is of the view that the petitioner should be paid adequate cost by the respondents, which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. 25. For the efforts of the petitioner and the unwavering manner in which he has pursued this case which has led to unearthing of large scale illegalities in the Education Department, the Court is of the view that the petitioner should be paid adequate cost by the respondents, which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. It shall be the responsibility of the above Commissioner and Secretary to pay the cost to the petitioner within four months from today. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed off.