ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed by 121 school teachers challenging the order dated 24-8-2007 issued by the Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar justifying the order dated 16-2001 of the respondent No. 2 cancelling en masse the appointment of some 4,200 teachers on the ground of illegal appointments in non-existent posts. 2. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities for filling up the vacant posts of L.P. School teachers, they, being eligible for the posts, applied for the same by depositing fees through Treasury Challans. They were accordingly called for the interview and were duly selected by the Sub-Divisional Education Advisory Board, Nalbari, BTC area, which were approved by the Chairman of the Sub-Divisional Education Advisory Board and countersigned by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, as Member Secretary of the Board. On the basis of the said select list, they were appointed as OBB teachers against the vacant posts sanctioned in the month of March, 2001. They duly joined their respective posts and started to discharge their duties whereafter. While they were continuing their services, the respondent No. 3 issued a common order bearing dated 16-7-2001 directing the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari to cancel all the appointments made by one Shri Girin Haloi, i/c Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari with immediate effect on or before 18-7-2001. By the order dated 17-7-2001, the Dy. Inspector of School-in-Charge, Nalbari issued the consequential order cancelling all the appointment of Assistant Teacher of L.P Schools and Junior Basic Schools, Nalbari including the petitioners made by the said Girin Haloi with immediate effect. To appreciate the controversy, the relevant portion of the order dated 16-7-2001 of the respondent No. 2 is reproduced below: “Perused the Govt. instruction communicated vide No. A(I)E. 508/2001/85 dt. 4/7/01 directing the appointing authorities to cancel all illegal appointments made in March/2001 Perused the general instruction of Director of Elementary Education, Assam, communicated vide No. DE/Misc 1/99/14357 dt. 30/5/01 directing cancellation of appointments made in March/01 in regular vacancies arising as a result of death and retirement without following rules and procedure laid down under law and without clearance from the SIMC. Perused the report of Magisterial enquiry caused by ADC, Nalbari and submitted by Dy. Commissioner, Nalbari vide his letter dNo. NCN/32/2001/119/dtd. 11/6/2001 on the irregularities in appointment in Nalbari District. Perused the report of Magisterial enquiry caused by ADC, Nalbari and submitted by Dy. Commissioner, Nalbari vide his letter dNo. NCN/32/2001/119/dtd. 11/6/2001 on the irregularities in appointment in Nalbari District. As per report of enquiry Sri Girin Haloi i/c DI of Schools, Nalbari appointed as many as 4510 LP teachers in Nalbari district. As per recorded statement of Sri G. Haloi (Annex-I) excepting 266 appointments, rest are and factious (?). Examination of records reveals that all these appointments have been made either quoting the memo govt. Sanctioning number PHA 24/96/211. dt. B/3/2001 and PMA/158/94/362 dt. 8/3/2001 PMA158/9/208 dt. 12/10/99 and PMA 158/94/342 dt. 23/12/99 or in death or retirement vacancies laid down under the law. Moreover it is seen that it will be humanly impossible to separate the genuine appointments made against actually sanctioned posts from those illegal appointments made in non-existing posts as the same govt. sanctioning letter and allotment letter have been quoted in the appointment letters. From the above mentioned fact it is clear that about 4200 appointments have been made illegally in non-existing posts without following rules and procedures laid down under law. As Govt. cannot allow the illegally appointed teachers to continue in service and as it is humanly impossible to separate the few legally teachers from the large number of illegally appointed teachers under the circumstances state herein above, therefore, it is decided to cancel all appointments made by Sri Girin Haloi, i/c D.I. of Nalbari with immediate effect. In view of the facts and reasons stated herein above and in pursuance of the govt. instruction communicated Vide No. A(I)E.508/2001/85 dt. /7/01 Nalbari is hereby directed to cancel all such appointments with immediate effect necessary order on or before 18/7/01 positively. Further DI shall direct all controlling officers headmasters to release the appointees and not to allow them to attend duties henceforth, if any controlling officer allow such appointees to attend duties after receipt of the order of cancellation he/she will be personally responsible for payment of salaries to those teachers.” 3. Further DI shall direct all controlling officers headmasters to release the appointees and not to allow them to attend duties henceforth, if any controlling officer allow such appointees to attend duties after receipt of the order of cancellation he/she will be personally responsible for payment of salaries to those teachers.” 3. As already noticed, consequential order was issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools-in-Charge, Nalbari by his order dated 17-7-2001 directing the District Elementary Education Officers and Headmasters of the schools to release all the appointees including the petitioners from service and not to allow them to attend duties henceforth and that if any DEEOs and Headmasters of the schools allowed such appointees to attend duties after receipt of such order of cancellation, he/she would be personally responsible for payment of salary to the teachers. Some teachers who were terminated along with the petitioners by the D.I. of Schools, Nalbari approached this Court in WP (C) No. 6262 of 2001 (Niren Sainary & Others) and this Court by the order dated 19-3-2002 disposed of the same together with some other connected cases with a direction to make an enquiry to ascertain the candidates who had been appointed after due selection and to reinstate those candidates who had been appointed pursuant to the selection. It was also directed therein that the authorities might approve the termination of the services of teachers who had been appointed without selection. Taking a cue from this order, some of the petitioners herein along with some other teachers who had been terminated also approached this Court in WP (C) No. 6946 of 2001 and this Court by the order dated 6-9-2005 extended similar relief given in WP (C) No. 6262 of 2001. After the disposal of WP (C) No. 6946 of 2001, the present petitioners who had never joined the petitioners in WP (C) No. 6946 of 2001 filed WP (C) No. 816 of 2006 along with some other terminated teachers and this Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing similar directions. In compliance with the orders of this Court, the respondent No. 3 forwarded his enquiry report to the respondent No. 2 but without mentioning the official who had conducted the enquiry or without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In compliance with the orders of this Court, the respondent No. 3 forwarded his enquiry report to the respondent No. 2 but without mentioning the official who had conducted the enquiry or without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. On receipt of the said enquiry report, the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order 24-8-2007 justifying the termination of the services of the petitioners on the ground that the select list was found to be defective. The relevant portions of the impugned order issued by the respondent No. 2 read thus: “In the instant case, the issue of advertisement is made by the Government of Assam and not by the District Level Officer with the approval from the Advisory Board concerned in the advertisement, the vacancies were not properly indicated. The selection list prepared by the Advisory Board is not prepared on the basis of merit list. Instead, the selected candidates were given against the name of the schools where they are to be posted/appointed. The proceeding of the Advisory Board does not mention the holding of the Selection Test, etc. It is seen that the meeting was held in the Bodoland Autonomous Council Guest House, Guwahati where the arrangement of holding Interview/Written Test, etc. could not be made. The list of selected candidates is authenticated by the Chairman and Members of the Advisory Board only. No Departmental Officer from the Education Department has put their signatures. It is presumed that the Selection Test was conducted without the presence of the departmental officer who is the Member Secretary of even Advisory Board. The signature of member Secretary is invariably required to make the document an official one. The observation of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and terms of references in respect of appointment of sons and daughters of the retired teachers to the tune of 10% is not indicated in the list of selected candidates prepared by the Advisory Board. It is also noticeable that the advertisement under reference has not indicated any quota for the reservation of sons and daughters of retired teachers. Accordingly, the Advisory Board also might have considered the case of the reservation for the sons and daughters of the retired person. Therefore, the cancellation issued by the Officer en masse against which the present Writ Petition is filed is justified as the selected list is found to be defective one as per observations above. Accordingly, the Advisory Board also might have considered the case of the reservation for the sons and daughters of the retired person. Therefore, the cancellation issued by the Officer en masse against which the present Writ Petition is filed is justified as the selected list is found to be defective one as per observations above. The lists of selected candidates were never recommended/approved by the EBAC. The Director, Education, BTC may take all necessary steps accordingly.” 4. Mr. N. Khataniar, the learned standing counsel for the Education (Elementary) Department, Assam, at the outset, submits that this is a case squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the order dated 21-11-2008 of WP (C) No. 4560 of 2008 and should be dismissed at the very threshold. This contention is challenged by Mr. D.K. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the instant case is distinguishable on facts. On perusing the order dated 21-11-2008 of this Court, I find force in the contention of the learned standing counsel for the Education (Elementary) Department, Assam. In WP (C) No. 4560 of 2008 also, the pleaded case of the petitioners was that they had been appointed in March, 2001 in different L.P. Schools of Nalbari district by the orders passed by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools. Following their appointments, they had worked until June/July, 2006 when they were stopped from working without, however, there being any order of termination or cessation of service. The petitioners are undoubtedly among the 4510 teachers who were appointed by the said Girin Haloi, the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, and who were terminated en masse under the orders of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam by the order dated 16-7-2001 and who were the petitioners in the said WP (C) No. 4560 of 2008. This Court had observed as follows: “Sri Pathak, learned departmental counsel to whom an advance copy of the writ petition was furnished had appeared in the case and contested the stand taken by the petitioners that they had worked up to June/July 2006. Sri Pathak had submitted that in the month of March, 2001, 7066 posts of teachers in L.P., M.E. schools of the State were allotted to Nalbari district against which one particular Deputy Inspector of Schools i.e. Sri Girin Haloi, had made as many as 4510 numbers of appointments. Sri Pathak had submitted that in the month of March, 2001, 7066 posts of teachers in L.P., M.E. schools of the State were allotted to Nalbari district against which one particular Deputy Inspector of Schools i.e. Sri Girin Haloi, had made as many as 4510 numbers of appointments. Sri Pathak had further submitted that by an order passed in the year 2001 itself all such appointments were cancelled and that on an approach being made by some of the aggrieved teachers this Court had directed an enquiry to be made as to whether the genuine appointments could be segregated from the rest. Sri Pathak had further submitted such enquiry have in the meantime been completed and report thereof has been submitted to the Government stating that (sic) the facts and circumstances segregation of the good from the bad was not possible. In this regard Sri Pathak has submitted that the aforesaid facts have been recorded by the Court in a proceeding registered and numbered as WP (C) No. 3832 of 2006. Faced with the aforesaid situation the Court had called for the records of WP (C) No. 3832 of 2006 which has been disposed of by the order dated 3-8-2006. The facts stated by Sri Pathak, learned departmental counsel, find mention in the aforesaid order of the Court where there is a reference to an affidavit of the Director of Elementary Education filed in another proceeding registered and numbered as WP (C) No. 2180 of 2006. The Court, therefore, called for the records of WP (C) No. 2180 of 2006. The said writ petition which is still pending raises grievance with regard to the non-completion of the enquiry ordered by the Court in the challenge to the cancellation of the appointment details of which have been noticed earlier in the said proceeding i.e. 2180 of 2006 there is an affidavit of the Director of Elementary Education wherein full details have been given with regard to the cancellation of the appointments made; the order passed by the Court for holding an enquiry in order to ascertain whether the genuine appointments can be identified and also the manner in which the enquiry was held and the details of the report submitted. The aforesaid affidavit, therefore, clearly discloses that all appointments of OBB teachers in Nalbari district numbering 4510 have been cancelled; the writ petitions filed against such cancellation i.e. WP (C) No. 6469 of 2001 and other connected cases were closed without any interference with the cancellation but with a direction to make an enquiry to determine the genuine appointments, if possible, the fact that such enquiry has been held and report has been submitted to the effect that the genuine appointments cannot be segregated or identified from the bad or illegal appointments. The above facts which stand fully established from the affidavit filed in WP (C) No. 2180 of 2006 would go to show that the claim of the petitioners to have been in service up to June/July 2006 is wholly incorrect. The petitioners have been terminated way back in the year 2001. That being the position there can be no question of entertaining this writ petition so as to consider as to whether the reliefs prayed for ought to be granted by the Court.” 5. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to distinguish this writ petition from the facts obtained in WP (C) No. 4560 of 2008, the relevant portions of the judgment whereof have been extensively reproduced herein above. It is not that this Court has no sympathy for the petitioners, who had apparently become the victims of reckless appointments of the then Deputy Inspector of Schools), whose greed for making money went unabated during those appalling days: he was least bothered about the havoc and misery being caused by him to the educated unemployed, who were vulnerable and who could, therefore, be easily duped by him. He has succeeded in causing untold misery to the petitioners. But then, this cannot be a ground for granting the reliefs claimed by the petitioners. No relief can be granted by this Court unless a case of invasion of legal or constitutional right is made out by the petitioners. 6. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.