ORDER All the writ petitions being interconnected have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. While the writ petition being WP(C) No. 1709/2006 and WP(C) No. 1540/2013 have been filed by one Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar along with others, the third writ petition being WP(C) No. 4673/2012 has been filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman along with others. The fourth writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 898/2011 has been filed by the Guwahati District Teachers’ Association supporting the case of Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar. 2. In WP(C) No. 1709/2006, the challenge made is the Annexure-M order dated 25/01/2006, by which the Government of Assam in the Education (Elementary & Secondary) under the signature of the Commissioner and Secretary, rejected the claim of Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and ordered de-recognition of the School, which was provincialised vide order dated 25/08/1998 w.e.f. 19/11/1991. The order so passed is said to be in compliance of the order dated 23/03/2005 passed in WP(C) No. 9048/2004. The said writ petition was filed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar raising a grievance against non-payment of salary etc. to the teaching and non-teaching staff even after Provincialisation of their services. Referring to the particular representation dated 23/04/2004, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 23/03/2005 directing the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education Department to dispose of the said representation. However, while disposing of the said representation which related to the grievance of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the School regarding non-payment of salary, the Commissioner and Secretary passed the impugned order dated 18/02/2006 de-recognizing /de-provincialising the school headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar as its Head Master, which was earlier provincialised w.e.f. 19/11/1991 vide order dated 28/05/1998. Admittedly, the order was passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and for that matter the School headed by the concerned authority. 3. The School with which the present proceeding is concerned is Nichilamari ME School under Sumoria Education Block, Guwahati Sub-Division. The said School was headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and it appears that subsequently there was division in the School and two separate schools under the same name and style were established, one headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and the other headed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman. 4. The said School was headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and it appears that subsequently there was division in the School and two separate schools under the same name and style were established, one headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and the other headed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman. 4. When the writ petition being WP(C) 1709/2006 was pending, the Guwahati District Teachers’ Association filed WP(C) No. 898/2011 virtually making the same challenge as in the earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 1709/2006. Thus, by this writ petition, the concerned association has supported the case of Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar. When the matter rested thus, it was the turn of Shri Dilip Kumar Barman to file the third writ petition being WP(C) No. 4673/2011, in which the prayer is to direct the respondents to release the admissible salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the School headed by him w.e.f. 19/11/2991. Thereafter, Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 1540/2013, making a prayer therein to release the admissible salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the School headed by him w.e.f. 19/11/1991. In the writ petition, he had also challenged the Annexure-19 communication dated 28/02/2013, by which the Government of Assam in the Education (Elementary) Department, directed the Director of Elementary Education to release the admissible salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the School headed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman. 5. From the above narration of facts, what has emerged is that there is claim and counter claim on the part of both Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and Shri Dilip Kumar Barman in running the school, namely, Nichilamari ME School. It is an admitted fact that the said school was originally run by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar, which was later on divided into two schools but in the same name, one headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and the other headed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman. The entire controversy has arisen because of the situation created by the officials of the Education Department. It could not have passed the above mentioned speaking order, firstly, without affording an opportunity of being heard to Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and secondly, because of a Division Bench Order of this Court dated 20/06/2003 passed in MC 162/2003 in WA No. 108/2000 (Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar Vs. Shri Dilip Kumar Barman). It could not have passed the above mentioned speaking order, firstly, without affording an opportunity of being heard to Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and secondly, because of a Division Bench Order of this Court dated 20/06/2003 passed in MC 162/2003 in WA No. 108/2000 (Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar Vs. Shri Dilip Kumar Barman). The said order was passed on a review of the order dated 12/05/2003 by which the Writ Appeal being WA 108/2000 was disposed of. The writ appeal was filed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar. For a ready reference, the operative part of the order dated 12/05/2003 is reproduced below :- “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for a considerable length of time, this Court is of the opinion that as on today both the schools are functioning headed by the appellant and the respondent respectively. It would, therefore, be appropriate in the interest of the student community to consider the matter of Provincialisation of both the schools afresh. If both the schools are in existence having sufficient number of students and imparting lessons to the pupil with experienced and qualified staff, there cannot be a reason for refusal of Provincialisation of the aforesaid two schools. Since the State Government has already decided to provincialise the School headed by Sri Barman as Head Master, it would be apposite for them to consider the case of the other school headed by Sri Sarkar as Headmaster and to pass appropriate orders for Provincialisation if the school fulfills the requisite criteria as per government policy. Exercise in this behalf has to be undertaken without effecting the decision already taken by the State to provincialise the school headed by Sri Barman.” 6. Seeking review of the aforesaid order, MC No. 162/2003 was filed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar, which was disposed of by order dated 20/06/2003, operative part of which is also reproduced below :- “It appears that the school headed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman has been ordered to be provincialised by the Director with effect from 19/11/1991. Besides, the State Government by the order dated 19th May, 1998 has provincialised a school in the same locality headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar. There is no dispute that both the schools are having its own buildings. Besides, the State Government by the order dated 19th May, 1998 has provincialised a school in the same locality headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar. There is no dispute that both the schools are having its own buildings. In view of this, the school headed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman and approved by the Director for regularization be formally regularized by an order of the State Government. Hence, we direct that the school headed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman be regularized. The benefits given to the school headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar by the order dated 19th May, 1998 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department shall not be disturbed. The Government may while regularizing the school headed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman give the benefit from the same date i.e. 19/11/1991.” 7. On perusal of the aforesaid order dated 20/06/2003, there is absolutely no manner of doubt that as per the direction of the Division Bench of this Court, both the schools headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and Shri Dilip Kumar Barman are required to be provincialised w.e.f. 19/11/1991. In fact, the school headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar was already provincialised w.e.f. 19/11/1991 vide order dated 19/05/1998. The Division Bench while issuing direction for Provincialisation of the school headed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman w.e.f. 19/11/1991 also made it clear that the Provincialisation of the school headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar vide order dated 19/05/1998 should not be disturbed. 8. The aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court having attained finality, the authority in the Education Department could not have re-opened the matter by sitting on appeal over those orders. As noted above, the order of this Court on the basis of which the impugned order of de-recognition/de-Provincialisation was passed was not for carrying out any such exercise. By the said order, only direction issued was to dispose of the representations submitted by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar, by which a prayer was made for release of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff with effect from the date of Provincialisation of the school. That apart, the impugned order of de-recognition /de-Provincialisation was also passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar. 9. That apart, the impugned order of de-recognition /de-Provincialisation was also passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar. 9. The aforesaid order of the Division bench dated 20/06/2003 passed in MC 162/20093 having attained its finality, the said decision will hold the field and the respondents shall carry out the required exercise towards compliance of the said order. They ought to have done the same immediately after the said order was passed, but instead, kept on passing orders unmindful of the said order. It is for this reason, in the enquiry report dated 07/01/2010 submitted by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education (Ele) Department, taking note of all the aforesaid facts, noted that as per the aforesaid orders of this Court, both the schools headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and Shri Dilip Kumar Barman are required to be provincialised. If the Education Department was aggrieved by the said order of the Division Bench, their remedy was elsewhere and not in the form of passing orders sitting on appeal over the said orders of this Court. 10. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 25/01/2006 de-recognition/de-provincialising the school headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and all subsequent action/communications, by which directions have been issued to pay admissible salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff in respect of only the school headed by Shri Dilip Kumar Barman. 11. Now, in terms of this order, all teaching and non-teaching staff of both the institutions headed by Shri Sushil Kumar Sarkar and Shri Dilip Kumar Barman will be entitled to receive admissible salary upon proper verification of the working teachers and their period of service, etc. by the Education Department, Government of Assam. The matter has already been delayed considerably. It is now 11 years since the aforesaid orders were passed by the Division Bench of this Court. In that view of the matter, the authority in the Education Department is directed to carry out the required exercise in terms of this order, as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not later than 31/03/2014. 12. Interim order (s) operating in these proceedings shall stand merged with this final order. In that view of the matter, the authority in the Education Department is directed to carry out the required exercise in terms of this order, as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not later than 31/03/2014. 12. Interim order (s) operating in these proceedings shall stand merged with this final order. Needless to say that in the event of requiring any action to be taken in respect of any one of the Schools, the same will have to be as per the laid down procedure. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.