JUDGMENT AND ORDER : A.M. Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Although Mr. D.C. Borah, learned counsel had appeared for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 when the matter called upon on 17.11.2016, but on the subsequent date when the matter was taken up on 23.11.2016, Mr. Borah was found to be absent. Again when the matter is called up today, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is not present in the Court. In the circumstance, this Writ Petition is taken up in the absence of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Science Graduate Teacher in the Murhanigaon High School, Puranigudam in the year 1993 and the school was given recognition by the Government of Assam w.e.f. 01.01.1992. Although the petitioner was working on a honorary basis, but in the year 2008-09, an amount of Rs. 9600/- (Rupees nine thousand six hundred) was given to the petitioner as a lump-sum salary by the Managing Committee for the said year 2008-2009. The said amount was given to the petitioner by the Managing Committee pursuant to an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty thousand) being granted by the Government of Assam to the school as a financial help for the year 2008-09. Subsequently, when another amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty thousand) was granted as a financial aid by the Government of Assam to the school for the year 2009-10, the petitioner was given an amount of Rs. 9600/- (Rupees nine thousand six hundred) for the whole year and subsequently in the year 2010-11 also the petitioner was given a financial grant of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month for the year 2010-11. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for a lien by his application dated 23.08.2010 by stating that as he was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher, Mathematics on contractual basis for a maximum period of 11 months at Puranigudam Girls High School. The petitioner requested that a lien be granted against his engagement as an Assistant Teacher for Mathematics at the Puranigudam Girls High School. 4. The petitioner requested that a lien be granted against his engagement as an Assistant Teacher for Mathematics at the Puranigudam Girls High School. 4. The petitioner states that upon such application being submitted for the purpose of lien, the petitioner was under the impression that the lien has been approved in his favour and accordingly he had gone to serve his contractual appointment in the Puranigudam Girls High School. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the subsequent order dated 26.03.2011 issued by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, by which the services of the petitioner stood terminated. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said impugned termination order was not served on the petitioner and therefore, he could not annexed the same to the writ petition. But, nevertheless, when the petitioner came to know that as per the advertisement dated 16.11.2011, issued under the signature of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, the name of the petitioner was not sent for the purpose of provincialisation under the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, the petitioner had made certain inquiries and upon such enquiry, he came to know that he had already been terminated by the aforesaid order dated 26.03.2011. Being aggrieved by the termination order dated 26.03.2011, the petitioner prefers this writ petition. 5. Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a submission that on the basis of his application dated 23.08.2010, requesting for a lien against his post of Assistant Teacher in Mathematics at the Murhanigaon High School, the petitioner understood that the lien sought by him had been granted. On a pointed query as to whether any order was communicated by the authorities on the acceptance on his prayer for lien, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no communication which provides that the request for the lien had been accepted. 6. On the other hand, as per the affidavit in opposition dated 30.04.2014 filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it has been stated that in the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Managing Committee of the school held on 15.02.2011, it was decided inter-alia, that the writ petitioner be informed either to resume his duties within 22.02.2011 or he should be asked to resign from the post. 4 and 5, it has been stated that in the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Managing Committee of the school held on 15.02.2011, it was decided inter-alia, that the writ petitioner be informed either to resume his duties within 22.02.2011 or he should be asked to resign from the post. Accordingly, it is stated that the Headmaster of the school i.e. the respondent No. 5 by letter dated 16.02.2011 had informed the petitioner about the decision of the Managing Committee of the school and asked the writ petitioner to resume his duties latest by 22.02.2011. But the writ petitioner instead of complying with the direction given by the Managing Committee of the school, had submitted another application dated 22.02.2011 again praying for one year lien leave stating inter-alia that he is serving temporarily as an Assistant Teacher of Mathematics at the Puranigudam Girls High School on a contractual basis. The Managing Committee in its meeting held on 27.02.2011 again decided to direct the writ petitioner either to resume his duties latest by 15.03.2011 or to submit his resignation letter from the post of the Assistant Teacher, considering the requirement of the service of a teacher for the benefit of the students of the school. Again the respondent No. 5 by letter dated 03.03.2011 had informed the writ petitioner about the decision of the Managing Committee asking the petitioner to resume his duties latest by 15.03.2011 or that otherwise the writ petitioner was required to resign from his post. But the petitioner instead of complying with the direction of the Managing Committee to resume his duty, continued to submit successive applications for lien leave from the school. It is the case of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that again on 04.04.2011, the writ petitioner was informed in writing that the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 26.03.2011 had again decided not to grant lien to the petitioner. It has further been stated that the Managing Committee of the school in its meeting held on 26.03.2011 had discussed the issue of grant of lien to the petitioner in detail and came to the conclusion that no such lien leave can be granted by the school to the petitioner since the school is a venture school. It was also stated that accordingly, the Managing Committee adopted a resolution unanimously to terminate the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 26.03.2011. It was also stated that accordingly, the Managing Committee adopted a resolution unanimously to terminate the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 26.03.2011. Apart from the above, there is no other stand taken by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in their affidavit in opposition. 7. Mr. N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Education Department submits that since the issue of lien and the subsequent termination is a matter pertaining to a venture school, the Education Department thought that they are not required to file any affidavit in the matter. In the above facts and circumstances, the issue for determination before this Court is whether it can be construed that because of the applications for lien of the petitioner, it can be deemed that the petitioner was granted a deemed lien in the absence of any specific order granting a lien. The other issue involved in this writ petition for consideration is whether the required procedure under the law in effecting the impugned order of termination dated 26.03.2011 was followed or not. 8. As regards the first issue is concerned, it may be noticed that although the petitioner had applied for lien by his application dated 23.08.2010, but the Managing Committee of the school by letter dated 16.02.2011 had informed the writ petitioner about the decision of the Managing Committee that the request for lien had not been agreed upon and the petitioner was asked to resume his duties. Subsequently, the other application of the petitioner dated 22.02.2011 again asking for one year lien was also given its due consideration by the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 27.02.2011 and as per the appropriate resolution, it was decided that the petitioner is not to be given a lien and he was asked to resume his duties. The said decision of the Managing Committee of refusing the lien was also communicated to the petitioner by the Headmaster of the school by letter dated 03.03.2011. Subsequently, on 04.04.2011, the writ petition was informed in writing that the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 26.03.2011 had decided not to grant him lien. In view of such communications on the part of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it cannot be held that there was a deemed lien in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, on 04.04.2011, the writ petition was informed in writing that the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 26.03.2011 had decided not to grant him lien. In view of such communications on the part of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it cannot be held that there was a deemed lien in favour of the petitioner. In fact, the facts of the case reveal that the request of lien of the petitioner was rejected and that was duly communicated to him. 9. But, as regards the other issue as to whether the required procedure prescribed under the law in coming to the impugned order of termination dated 26.03.2011 was followed or not, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Rule 21 of the Assam Non Government Educational Institutions (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2007) and submits that the prescribed procedure under Rule-21 has not been followed. On a perusal of the affidavit of the affidavit of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also it transpires that there is no averment or material to the effect to indicate that the prescribed procedure under Rule-21 of the said Rules-2007 was followed. It is an admitted position of the parties that on the basis of the status of the concerned school at that relevant point of time, the Murhanigaon High School was a Non-Government Educational Institution as defined u/s 2G of the Assam Non Government Educational Institution (Regulation and Management) Act, 2007. In view of such submission, this Court is of the view that the concerned Murhanigaon High School is a non-Government Educational Institution and as such, the provisions of Rule-21 of the aforesaid Rule-2007 are applicable in case of the school. 10. It has been held by this Court in WP(C) No. 3453 of 2011 (Sri Jyotish Kalita v. The State of Assam and others) that the procedure set forthwith in Rule-21 of the Assam Non Government Educational Institutions (Regulation and Management) Rules, 2007 is a mandatory requirement and not following the procedures set forth therein would vitiate the adverse orders passed against the employees. 11. As has already been held, there is no material on record either in the affidavit in opposition of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 or any other material that the procedure set forth in Rule-21 of the said Rule 2007 has been followed in the instant case. 11. As has already been held, there is no material on record either in the affidavit in opposition of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 or any other material that the procedure set forth in Rule-21 of the said Rule 2007 has been followed in the instant case. As it has already been held that the requirement of Rule-21 is a mandatory requirement, any order of termination passed without following the procedure set forthwith therein would not be sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order of termination dated 26.03.2011 is hereby set aside for non-compliance of the procedure prescribed in Rule-21 of the 2007 Rules. But, however, liberty is given to the appropriate authority to proceed against the petitioner by following the required procedure set forthwith in the said Rule-2007. It is submitted by Mr. N. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Education Department that the appropriate authority under the 2007 Rules is the Managing Committee of the School. The aforesaid process shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months. 13. At the stage, Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned post of Assistant Teacher, Mathematics in the Murhanigaon High School is lying vacant as because the other incumbent, who was sought to have been appointed in the said post, had in the meantime, resigned and thereafter no appointment has been made against the said post. In view of the above, till the final decision against the petitioner is taken, the said post shall not be filled up. 14. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.