Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 902 (GAU)

Fulessa Begum and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors.

2014-09-23

B.K.SHARMA

body2014
This batch of writ petitions pertain to selection and appointment of stipendiary teachers in various LP schools in the district of Darrang. The basic grievance of the petitioners is in respect of termination of their services by order dated 9.10.2012 passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. According to the petitioners, they having been selected for appointment on regular basis, their services could not have been dispensed with by a stroke of pen, as has been done by the impugned order dated 9.10.2012. It will be pertinent to mention here that some of the writ petitions were filed before issuance of the impugned order of termination apprehending dispensation of services pursuant to the individual show cause notices issued to the petitioners and the personal hearing afforded to them including submission of show cause reply to the said show cause notices. 2. I have heard Mr. A.M. Buzarbarua, Ms. K. Devi, Mr. S.S. Goswami led by Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. U.K. Nair, Mr. T. Islam, Mr. Giasuddin, Mr. R. Islam, Mr. K.U. Ahmed, Mr. B. Sarma, Mr. P.C. Das, learned counsels for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. R. Majumdar, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, Mr. B.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel representing the Chairman of the Selection Committee, Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC. 3. Learned counsels for the parties have extensively argued in reference to the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 5048/2012, WP(C) No. 5144/2012 and WP(C) No. 1720/2014. I have also gone through the entire materials on record. 4. The case projected in the writ petitions is that, pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.12.1996 issued under the signature of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam inviting applications for about 7500 posts of both Middle and LP schools throughout the State of Assam, each one of the petitioners responded to the same by offering candidature. As stated in WP(C) No. 5048/2012 to the knowledge of the petitioners, out of the said posts, 274 posts were for the LP school teachers in the district of Darrang. According to them, the selection was conducted as per the provisions of Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. They have referred to the constitution of the Selection Board as was constituted vide notification dated 30.4.1997. 5. According to them, the selection was conducted as per the provisions of Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. They have referred to the constitution of the Selection Board as was constituted vide notification dated 30.4.1997. 5. As per the own admission of the petitioners, they had appeared before the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board (DLSB) on various dates during the months of June and July, 1997. However, the selection was made on 26.10.1999, which is more than 2 years after conducting the interview. After the purported selection, the petitioners were appointed as stipendiary teachers in various LP schools in the district. Thereafter they were also sent for Junior Basic Training and on completion of the said training, they were appointed in the time scale of pay. As stipendiary teachers, they were appointed on fixed pay of Rs. 900/- per month, later on enhanced to Rs. 1800/- per month. 6. Things started moving adversely to the petitioners when the writ petition being WP(C) No. 6631/2003 was filed by some such appointees when they were asked to appear before the Executive Magistrate, Mangaldoi in connection with a magisterial enquiry regarding illegal appointment of teachers of Mangaldoi Sub-Division in the district of Darrang. They were asked to bring all relevant documents/appointment orders etc. for scrutiny in connection with the enquiry to be held. Instead of participating in the enquiry and establishing validity of their appointments, they filed the said writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 6631/2003. 7. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by order dated 4.2.2008 and as it appears from the said order, the then Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education (Elementary) Department; the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang and the Officer-in-charge, Mangaldoi Police Station all were directed to appear personally in the Court. While disposing of the writ petition by the aforesaid order dated 14.2.2008, they were also heard and the records produced by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang had also been perused. On perusal of the said records, the Court found that the enquiry, in which, the petitioners involved in the writ petition were asked to participate had been concluded as far back as on 4.12.2003 and the report of the enquiry had also been sent to the Commissioner & Secretary (Elementary) for further action on 15.12.2003. On perusal of the said records, the Court found that the enquiry, in which, the petitioners involved in the writ petition were asked to participate had been concluded as far back as on 4.12.2003 and the report of the enquiry had also been sent to the Commissioner & Secretary (Elementary) for further action on 15.12.2003. As recorded in the said order, the three writ petitioners involved in the said writ petition were not associated/involved in the enquiry due to pendency of the writ petition. 8. As the enquiry in respect of a large number of teachers appointment/adjusted in under similar circumstances like the present petitioners including the petitioners involved in the said writ petition had been conducted, the Court opined that there was no ground to interfere with the notices issued to the three petitioners involved in the said writ petition. It was also recorded that in absence of any interim restriction on the enquiry against the petitioners by Court, there was no impediment for the respondents to proceed against the petitioners and to complete the enquiry. 9. Noticing the aforesaid fact, the Court also opined that the enquiry should be brought to its logical conclusion. It was also provided in the order that if the report of the enquiry was adverse to the petitioners and any prejudicial action against them were required to be initiated, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail such legal remedy as might be open to them in law. The writ petition was closed in terms of the said order. However, before parting with the case record, the Court made the following significant observation: “Notwithstanding the above, the Court has deemed it proper to record its further orders in respect of certain matters that had come to its notice in the course of the present case. The Deputy Commissioner, Darrang has placed certain records before the Court which would go to show that the magisterial enquiry (the enquiry in which the petitioners were not involved) was completed on 4.12.2003 and a report thereof had been submitted to the Government in the Education Department on 15.12.2003. The receipt of the said report had been acknowledged by an employee of the office of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department as well as the Director of Elementary Education. The receipt of the said report had been acknowledged by an employee of the office of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department as well as the Director of Elementary Education. No action on the basis of the said report, as would have been justified in law, appears to have been taken, till date, on account of the act that the said report has not been traceable. If an administrative enquiry was conducted with regard to the validity of appointments of a large number of teachers, as in the present case, and the report thereof had been submitted to the concerned department i.e. Education Department, it is incumbent on the part of the said department to take necessary follow up action against the persons responsible for such illegal appointments as well as the beneficiaries of such appointments, in accordance with law. The stand of the Education Department that the said report of the Deputy Commissioner dated 4.12.2003 is not available is plainly not acceptable to the Court. The receipt of the said report both in the offices of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department and the Director of Elementary Education has been acknowledged by persons claiming to be employees of the said two offices. No attempt has been made to identify the said employees and trace out the report. In such circumstances, the Court is left with no option but to conclude that in the present case there has been a deliberate attempt on the part of the Education Department not to take action as warranted in law. The matter, therefore, needs to be placed before the Chief Secretary of the State for his intervention in the matter. The Education Department, naturally will be under a legal obligation to take all necessary steps on the basis of the report of enquiry dated 4,.12.2003 furnished by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi. As the said department has stated before the Court that the report is not immediately traceable and as the said report has been placed before the Court by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi will make available a copy of the said report to Sri Biren Dutta, Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. As the said department has stated before the Court that the report is not immediately traceable and as the said report has been placed before the Court by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi will make available a copy of the said report to Sri Biren Dutta, Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, in the Court premises in the course of the day, whereafter, the said officer i.e. Commissioner and Secretary, Education (Elementary) Department, will act in terms of the present order.” 10. On perusal of the above order, it is abundantly clear that the Court was annoyed due to inaction on the part of the authorities in the Education Department in not initiating any action on the basis of the enquiry report that was submitted before the authority. It was observed in the order that it was incumbent on the part of the Department to take necessary follow up action against the persons responsible for the illegal appointments as well as beneficiaries of such appointments in accordance with law. As will be evident from the said order, the Court also recorded that there had been a deliberate attempt on the part of the Education Department not to take action as warranted in law. Accordingly direction was issued to place the matter before the Chief Secretary of the State for his intervention in the matter. It was also provided that the Education Department would be under a legal obligation to take all necessary steps on the basis of the enquiry report dated 4.12.2003 furnished by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi. 11. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, things started moving and the Commissioner & Secretary, Education (Elementary) Department by his communication dated 10.6.2008, directed the Director, Elementary Education, Assam to serve show cause notices upon the teachers as to why their services should not be terminated. Pursuant there to, individual show cause notices had been issued to the petitioners asking for their response and accordingly each one of the petitioners submitted their show cause reply justifying their appointments. As noted above, some of the petitioners were also provided with opportunity of hearing personally. Amidst the aforesaid process, some more writ petitions came to be filed being WP(C) No. 1028/2009, WP(C) No. 29/2009 and WP(C) No. 4081/2009. 12. As noted above, some of the petitioners were also provided with opportunity of hearing personally. Amidst the aforesaid process, some more writ petitions came to be filed being WP(C) No. 1028/2009, WP(C) No. 29/2009 and WP(C) No. 4081/2009. 12. All the writ petitions pertained to the same selection and appointment involved in this batch of writ petitions. The claim of the petitioners, as in the instant case was that they were all appointed as LP school teachers on monthly stipend in various LP schools in the district of Darrang. Some of the petitioners had undergone Junior Basic Training and some were still waiting for such training. When they were reverted back to the monthly stipend from that of regular time scale of pay, they filed the writ petitions challenging the said action of the respondents. As it appears from the judgment and order dated 29.2.2012 passed in the said writ petitions, salary in respect of some of the petitioners was also stopped. 13. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties involved in the said writ petitions and on perusal of the records available before the Court, the Court made the following significant observation towards disposal of the writ petition: “16. Heard the counsels for the parties. It is now well established that any person claiming right to enjoy regular scale of pay must have been appointed in accordance with the rules and by following regular process of appointment. In the present cases, the petitioners have claimed that they have been appointed through regular process and in fact they were enjoying regular scale of pay upon their appointment. The contention of the State respondents in substance is that subsequently on enquiry, it has been revealed that no such due process was followed and in fact, certain officers without proper authorization and without following norms had made the appointment of the teachers numbering about 302 teachers. As can be seen from the pleadings, the State authorities are already seized of the matter and they have already initiated the process of making enquiry in this regard on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang District. In fact, the State authorities have already started issuing show cause notices to those teachers who were identified to have been appointed in irregular/illegal manner and the State authorities have also stated that the personal hearing of the teachers have already been initiated. In fact, the State authorities have already started issuing show cause notices to those teachers who were identified to have been appointed in irregular/illegal manner and the State authorities have also stated that the personal hearing of the teachers have already been initiated. 17. In view of the above exercise already initiated by the State Government, to find out whether the petitioners were appointed on regular basis by following rules and norms as claimed by the petitioners or whether they were illegally appointed as contended by the State cannot be considered at this stage. The authorities themselves are looking into this aspect. However, it is also a fact that this issue, whether the petitioners are appointed illegally or irregularly as contended by the State authorities, have remained unresolved for the last so many years. The Deputy Commissioner had made a report in December, 2003 yet there is no end in sight as to the process already initiated by the State authorities to come to a conclusion as to the validity of the appointments of the petitioners. Now more than 9(nine) years have lapsed and it will not be in public interest to keep this issue un-resolved. If the authorities feel that certain teachers have been appointed illegally, irregularly and they do not deserve to remain as teachers, there is no reason why appropriate action should not be taken at the earliest to deal with their continuation in service. On the other hand, if the claim of the petitioners that they are regularly appointed after following due process of law is true, there is no reason why the Damocles' Sword should be kept hanging over their heads for such long period. If indeed the claim of the petitioners is true that they have been regularly appointed by following due process, there is no reason why their legitimate claim of enjoying regular scale of pay should be denied or kept suspended for such long period of time. The State respondents themselves have contended in their affidavit-in- opposition that they had issued show cause notices in 2009. Yet, the result of the aforesaid enquiry, after lapse of about three years, is not visible on record. The State respondents themselves have contended in their affidavit-in- opposition that they had issued show cause notices in 2009. Yet, the result of the aforesaid enquiry, after lapse of about three years, is not visible on record. Therefore, considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the opinion that the authorities must conclude its enquiry as to the validity of the appointment of the teachers including the cases of the petitioners within a reasonable period so that the petitioners would know their status as regards the validity of the appointment orders and the authorities would be able to take appropriate actions in accordance with law. 18. Accordingly, the present three writ petitions being W.P(C) No.l028/2009, W.P(C) No.l029/2009 and W.P(C) No.4081/2009 are disposed of with a direction to the authorities to conclude the enquiry as regards the validity of the appointment orders of the petitioners within a period of three months from today by following due process of law and thereafter, on conclusion of such enquiry, inform the petitioners as to the status of their appointments and if the petitioners are found to have been validly appointed by the authorities, they are entitled to regular scale of pay with effect from the date they had been deprived of. On the other hand, if the appointments of the petitioners are found not to be valid or legal or regular, it is left to the wisdom of the authorities to take such appropriate actions as they may deem fit in accordance with law. However, considering the entire aspects in the light of the facts as discussed above, this Court is also of the opinion that the State authorities will work out the entitlement of the petitioners as regards the regular pay scale from the date they were reverted the suspended account which shall be released to the petitioners if entitled to upon conclusion of the enquiry as stated above.” 14. By the time the writ petitions were disposed of, the related enquiry was already conducted and reports were also made available to the authorities in the Education Department. It was pursuant to such enquiry and the direction of this Court, the petitioners were issued with the individual show cause notices asking for their reply, pursuant to which, they also submitted their reply. It was pursuant to such enquiry and the direction of this Court, the petitioners were issued with the individual show cause notices asking for their reply, pursuant to which, they also submitted their reply. As noted above, some of the petitioners were also provided with personal hearing and thereafter their services were terminated by the aforementioned impugned order dated 9.10.2012. As noted above, some of the petitioners approached this Court even before issuance of the impugned order of termination questioning the very action of the respondents in issuing show cause notices. Some other writ petitions have been filed questioning the aforesaid order dated 9.10.2012. 15. According to the learned counsels for the petitioners, their services could not have been dispensed with by a stroke of pen and in the manner and method in which the same has been done. According to them proper scrutiny ought to have been made towards terminating the services of the petitioner before taking any action in the matter. Referring to the enquiry report, referred to herein below, it is the plea of the petitioners that the said report did not satisfy the test of illegal appointments towards dispensing with the services of the petitioners. Some of the learned counsels for the petitioners have also argued that due procedure towards dispensing with the services of the petitioners ought to have been adopted as provided for in the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. 16. Mr. R. Majumdar, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, however, submits that the purported select list, which has been placed on record by the respondent No. 8 having contained only 164 names, there could not have been appointments of 302 teachers, which itself will go to show that the entire process was illegal. He further submits that the select list that had been produced by the then Chairman of the Selection Committee (respondent No. 8) is not a valid select list having not been prepared as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. According to him, in the given facts and circumstances, there was no other option left than to terminate the services of the petitioners by following the procedure of issuance of show cause notices and upon providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 17. Mr. B.D. Das, learned Sr. According to him, in the given facts and circumstances, there was no other option left than to terminate the services of the petitioners by following the procedure of issuance of show cause notices and upon providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 17. Mr. B.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel representing the respondent No. 8 has submitted in reference to the two affidavits filed by the said respondents that the selection was conducted as per the requirement of the aforesaid provision of the rules. However, he submits that if any illegal appointment was made by the appointing authority, the Selection Committee cannot be made responsible for the same. On being asked as to on what basis the select list was prepared and that too after more than 2 years of the interview, which were held during June and July, 1997, he submits that records being not available with the respondent No. 8, he is not in a position to offer any comment. However, he submits that records might be available with the authorities in the Education Department. 18. Admittedly, 302 appointments were made, some of which were on compassionate ground. If the select list that has been produced by the respondent No. 8 is taken to be correct one then also the same having contained only 164 names, there could not have been appointments of 302 candidates. The illegality committed in the selection had duly been taken note of in the aforesaid two judgments requiring the respondents to take appropriate action in the matter. 19. As noted above, there were two enquiries, one conducted by the Executive Magistrate, Mangaldoi and the other conducted by the Enquiry Officer and OSD, Director of Elementary Education, Assam. While the first enquiry report is dated 15.7.2003, the second enquiry report is dated 17.6.2010. On perusal of both the enquiry reports, there is absolutely no manner of doubt that the appointments had been made illegally by the then DI of Schools. From the report dated 15.7.2003, it appears that the enquiry was conducted in respect of appointments of LP school teachers appointed on 20.11.1999 and 4.12.1999, on which dates, the petitioners were appointed. Referring to the particular heads under which the appointments were made and as recorded in the enquiry report, the DI of Schools could not furnish any documents or clarification regarding the purported selection. 20. Referring to the particular heads under which the appointments were made and as recorded in the enquiry report, the DI of Schools could not furnish any documents or clarification regarding the purported selection. 20. Although, the subsequent DI of Schools, Mangaldoi vide his order dated 22.10.2001 ordered for cancellation and declared that the appointments made by the earlier DI of schools Shri Jogen Bora as void ab-initio and accordingly cancelled the same, but irrespective of the said declaration and cancellation, some of the teachers indicated in the report continued to serve as LP school teachers. As the said enquiry report revealed, many of the teachers in respect of whom attachment orders had been issued, but there was no reason as to why such attachment had been made. Those teachers never joined in the school where they were originally posted, but were shown attached to the office of the BEEO. No works were also assigned to those LP school teachers, but they continued to receive their salary. As recorded in the report, attachment orders were issued to show continuity of their services although their appointments were illegal. 21. One significant aspect of the matter as noted in the enquiry report is that the appointments were made in respect of many teachers, but under the same memo numbers. For example, the Memo Nos. in respect of the following teachers are same: “1(i) Shri Kuseswar Sarma, Barampur LPS 10,345-52 dtd. 20/11/99 (ii) Shri Piarul Islam, No. 1 Dhansiri LPS 10,345-52 dtd. 20/11/99 2(i) Md. Ahadur Rahman, Goraimari Buragohain LPS 10,385-92 dtd 4/12/99 (ii) Shri Nripen Bora, Tanuram Saharia LPS 10,385-92 dtd 4/12/99 (iii) Shri Utpal Saharia, Barbakarapara LPS 10,385-92 dtd 4/12/99 ……… ……… 4(i) Shri Dhrubajyoti Sarma, Rupkonwar LPS 10457-62 dtd 20/11/99 (ii) Smt Mamoni Devi, Satkhali LPS 10457-62 dtd 20/11/99 5(i) Shri Jalti Ram Boro, Simaluguri LPS 10525-31 dtd 4/12/99 (ii) Shri Bhola Kalita, Kamarpara LPS 10525-32 dtd 4/12/99” 22. As further recorded in the said enquiry report, although the DI of Schools, Mangaldoi vide Memo dated 2.11.2001 had submitted list of illegal appointments, whose appointments were also cancelled, but it was also found that the said teachers numbering 22 were still continuing in their services. Finally the enquiry report recorded the following : “The enquiry revealed that there is close nexus between the Treasury Officials, LP School teachers and officials of the DI of Schools, Mangaldoi. Finally the enquiry report recorded the following : “The enquiry revealed that there is close nexus between the Treasury Officials, LP School teachers and officials of the DI of Schools, Mangaldoi. This is substantiated by the fact that many of the above officials have their close relatives appointed illegally as LP teachers. The above network is so closely knit that no information or official documents are made available or are plainly missing from office to stop and disturb the enquiry. In view of the above, the above enquiry has been started to ascertain firstly to collect the names of teachers of all schools through the Centre Secretaries by issuing a form having different columns including the date of appointment/joining date etc. Next, the documents of all teachers appointed in 1999 under the OBB (NP) were scrutinized to detect the illegal appointment. The enquiry also revealed that some teachers with an appointment letter of 1999 joined in different schools in 2001/2002/2003 and their names have already been mentioned above. The office of the DI of schools, Mangaldoi covers from their Education blocks and two Town Centres as follows: Block/townNo. of teachers appointed in 1999 1. Kalaigaon Education Block86 2. Sipajhar” ”139 3. Khoirabari” ”26 4. Dalgaon” ”42 5. Tangla Town Centre3 6. Mangaldoi Town Centre6 302 LP Teachers (Ann-34 to 39) It is also amazing that the Mangaldoi Treasury failed to produce the teachers list and the Accountant, Shri Durga stated verbally that they pass the bills on the basis of the Pay Bill Registers passed/prepared by the Block Education Office/Centre Secretaries which is very suspicious. The Treasury Official also stated that they do not have File Register also. Moreover, it is to be mentioned here that all the appointments made under dated 20-11-99 and 4-12-99 are all illegal and irregular as these appointments were made without the selection and approval of the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board for Elementary Education of Mangaldoi Sub-Division for 1999. Therefore, it is hereby suggested that the DEEO/DI of Schools be directed to take immediate steps for suspension/cancellation of the already mentioned illegal appointments of LP Teachers as per provision of law.” 23. After the aforesaid enquiry, it was incumbent on the part of the Education (Elementary) Department to take appropriate action in the matter. However, when nothing was done, this Court had to intervene by the aforesaid order dated 14.2.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 6631/2003. After the aforesaid enquiry, it was incumbent on the part of the Education (Elementary) Department to take appropriate action in the matter. However, when nothing was done, this Court had to intervene by the aforesaid order dated 14.2.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 6631/2003. Thereafter, when three more writ petitions were filed, this Court again directed vide judgment dated 29.2.2012 referred to above to take appropriate action in the matter. 24. Although, after the aforesaid enquiry, action ought to have been taken, but the authority conducted another enquiry through an officer of the Director of Elementary Education, who submitted his report on 17.6.2010. As reflected in the said enquiry, personal hearing was given to the teachers and accordingly various dates had to be fixed from 22.3.2010 providing two dates per week and the personal hearing continued upto 27.4.2010. 13 teachers did not attend the hearing for the reasons recorded in the said report. There is a reference to the earlier enquiry report referred to above. In the report, the following significant findings have been recorded: “On examination of the statements recorded and documents submitted by the teachers, it is seen that majority of them were appointed on the dates 20/11/99 and 4/12/99 by the then i/c D.I.S. Sri Jogen Bora. All of them, except for those who were found to be appointed on compassionate ground, stated that they had applied for the post in the year 1996-1997 and appeared for interview at various venues in Mangaldoi. However, all of them stated that they had not seen any select list where their names had been enlisted as selected candidates for appointment to the post of Asstt. Teacher in LP school. This is corroborated by the report of the D.I.S., Mangaldoi dtd. 10/5/10 that there is no proceeding book or select list pertaining to selection of candidates by the SDLAB, Mangaldoi for appointment in the year 1999. The report also stated hat out of the 302 appointments only 84 nos of appointment letters are available in the office of the D.I.S., Mangaldoi at present. As per the statements, since the date of joining, except for SL No. 223 and SL No. 255, they have all received salary regularly till date either as stipend @ Rs. 1800 p.m. or at the regular scale of pay after passing the required training. As per the statements, since the date of joining, except for SL No. 223 and SL No. 255, they have all received salary regularly till date either as stipend @ Rs. 1800 p.m. or at the regular scale of pay after passing the required training. Out of 302 teachers, only 8 (eight) of them have not undergone any training, But the teachers who have successfully completed the Junior Basic Training or requisite training since 2006 have not received their salary at the regular scale of pay due to the litigations, complications and non-finalization of the matter at hand. Verification of documents submitted by the teachers reveals that 86 (eighty six) of them have been subsequently adjusted against retired/expired/transferred and other unspecified vacancies. The list of particulars of these adjusted teachers are enclosed herewith as Annexure-A.” 25. It was pursuant to the aforesaid exercise carried out, the departmental authority issued individual show cause notices to the petitioners and it was only after submission of their reply, the authority decided to terminate their services as on the face of it, their appointments were found to be illegal and dehorse the recruitment rules. 26. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 8, the purported minutes of the Selection Committee has been enclosed. As per the said document, the Selection Committee met on 26.10.1999. It is not understood that if the interviews were held during June-July, 1997, why it took more than 2 years to finalise the selection. There is also no reference in the minutes of the Selection Committee about the parameters and yardsticks required to be applied for selection. Prior to that, a Selection Committee was constituted comprising of as many as 17 members including the Chairman and the Member Secretary. 27. As per the requirement of Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules of 1977, the Selection Board on completion of interviews by the different Interview Committees, shall add marks secured by different candidates in the interview, the marks secured due to qualifications of the candidates over and above the minimum qualification and the marks secured due to experience as a teacher, in the manner provided in Schedule-I and prepare a list constituency-wise for each Assam Legislative Assembly Constituency in descending order of the total marks secured by a candidate out of the total marks mentioned in Schedule-I. Thereafter, having provided for reservation etc. the Selection Board shall finalise the select list. Further the select list shall contain the names of as many successful candidates as are the advertised vacancies with Roll Numbers and names of the candidates in order of merit. The list is required to be submitted to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. The Director shall authenticate and get the select list so prepared published by affixing copy thereof in the Office Notice Board of the Director, Elementary Education, Assam; Inspector of Schools; District Elementary Education Officer; Block Elementary Education Officer and DI of Schools and in any other manner as the Government may deem fit as and when they are received from different Sub-Divisions. After finalization of the select list in the above manner, the DI of Schools or District Elementary Education Officer as the case may be shall appoint the selected candidates in order of merits only from the authenticated select list. 28. Under Rule 3 there is provision for Selection Committee, which shall be comprised of an eminent educationist/social worker as Chairman/Chairperson; 7 educationalist and social workers to be nominated by State Government, at least two each should be from women and parents and at least one should be from the weaker section to be nominated by Government as members; DI and DEEO shall also be members of the Selection Committee. 29. In the instant case, the aforesaid provisions were not followed. While conducting the purported selection, the Selection Committee comprised of as many as 17 members and there was no women members. There was also no indication as to who were the members from parents and weaker section of the society. As noted above, the purported selection was made after expiry of two years from the dates of interview which were conducted during the month of June-July, 1997. Significantly, the select list also does not indicate the marks obtained by the candidates. On the other hand, the selected candidates were assigned with respective schools, by way of posting, which were not the task of the Selection Committee. 30. As noted above, after preparation of the select list maintaining merits of the candidates, the appointments were to be made by the DI or DEEO, as the case may be. In the instant case, the Selection Committee itself made the appointments and that too against the posts which had long expired its validity. 30. As noted above, after preparation of the select list maintaining merits of the candidates, the appointments were to be made by the DI or DEEO, as the case may be. In the instant case, the Selection Committee itself made the appointments and that too against the posts which had long expired its validity. As will be evident from the minutes of the Selection Committee, the selection was conducted in the circuit house. The respondent No. 8 in his wisdom has annexed individual affidavits of some of the members of the Selection Committee sworn before the Notary to the effect that they had participated in the selection process in the circuit house and they prepared the select list. It is not understood as to how the respondent No. 8 could remember in 2014 as to the selection that was conducted way back in 1997/1999 and could also possess the copy of the purported select list. 31. Much has been emphasized on the violation of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioners, a regular enquiry as envisaged under Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 ought to have been conducted framing definite articles of charges. Needless to say that principles of natural justice is not based on any straight jacket formula. Each case will have be decided on involved fact situation. As has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Assam Vs. Smt. Pratima Das reported in 1997 (3) GLT 71, when appointments are made dehorse the recruitment rules, such illegal appointees cannot be harp upon violation of principles of natural justice. As in the instant case, in the said case also, fraudulent appointments were made in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Rules of 1977. Upholding uphold the termination of services of primary school teachers, it was held that in such cases principles of natural justice must not stretch that far so as to frustrate the justice itself. 32. In Jagannath Kr. Dey Vs. State of Assam reported in 2010 (3) GLT 632, under somewhat similar circumstances, termination of services of primary and middle school teachers with the issuance of show cause notices was upheld. In Nazira Begum Lashkar Vs. 32. In Jagannath Kr. Dey Vs. State of Assam reported in 2010 (3) GLT 632, under somewhat similar circumstances, termination of services of primary and middle school teachers with the issuance of show cause notices was upheld. In Nazira Begum Lashkar Vs. State of Assam reported in (2001) 1 SCC 143 , the Apex Court dealing with termination of services of primary school teachers by issuing show cause notices held that where appointments neither conferred any right nor any equity in favour of the appointees and when Assistant Teacher of Primary schools were appointed indiscriminately without following the statutory rules, termination of their services with the issuance of show cause notices was proper. 33. At this stage Mr. B.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel, representing the respondent No. 8 by producing letter dated 28.4.1997 addressed to all DEEO and DI of School providing guidelines for selection of candidates for the posts of teachers in Primary and Middle schools submits that the selection was conducted as per the guidelines laid down in the said communication. Even on perusal of the said letter, there cannot be any second opinion that the selection was conducted not as per the said guideline. As per the said guideline, interviews were to be conducted between 5.5.1997 to 28.5.1997 and thereafter the list was to be prepared. However, as noted above, after conducting the purported interviews in June-July, 1997, the select list was prepared nearly 2 years thereafter. As per the said guidelines, there should be indication of allotment of marks under the particular head, but the same was not followed by the Selection Committee. The marks were to be indicated under different heads as indicated in the enclosed forms. The different heads are - SL No., Roll No., candidates name, Address, Categories (SC/ST/OBC/MOBC/Retd LP teacher's son/daughter, Percentage of marks of HSLC (Total marks 100) etc. However, nothing of the sorts was followed while preparing the purported select list. 34. Above being the position, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioners. It will be pertinent to mention here that as per the enquiry report referred to above, there were 16 candidates appointed on compassionate ground and 1 (one) was appointed as Nepali language teacher, which are not within the purview of illegal appointments. As submitted by Mr. It will be pertinent to mention here that as per the enquiry report referred to above, there were 16 candidates appointed on compassionate ground and 1 (one) was appointed as Nepali language teacher, which are not within the purview of illegal appointments. As submitted by Mr. R. Majumdar, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Elementary) Department they stand excluded from the purview of the termination. 35. All the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 36. Before parting with the case records, It is placed on record that without the active support of the officials of the Education Department, such large scale illegal appointments could not have been made, about which, there is also mention in the earlier two judgments referred to above. This being the position, the Chief Secretary of the State is directed to ensure holding of proper enquiry to find out those erring officials for disciplinary action immediately.