JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions being W.P.(C)407 of 2016 [Mayarani Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C)408 of 2016 [Kabirath Rupini vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] and W.P.(C)409 of 2016 [Swadhin Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment as the questions raised in these writ petitions are based on the identical fact and law. Moreover, according to the learned counsel appearing for the parties these writ petitions are also covered by previous judgments of this court being the judgment and order dated 07.09.2015 delivered in W.P.(C) 07 of 2009 and the judgment and order dated 04.03.2016 delivered in W.P.(C) 627 of 2015 and others. Since there is a consensus that these writ petitions are squarely covered by the said two judgments and orders. It is not required that the facts are elaborately discussed for the purpose of any decision. A common fact that runs through these petitions is that the petitioners were along with others appointed by the notification No.F.1(113)-DSE/92 dated 01.01.1993 as the Kok-borok Teacher by the respondent No.2. 3. The petitioners after getting the offer of appointment joined in their respective place of posting and continued in their service till 23.03.1995. The respondent No.2, by the memorandum No.F.1(1-13)-DSE/93(L-3) dated 24.03.1995 directed the petitioner not to enter in the school on the alleged ground that in their offer of appointment no place of posting was mentioned and thus the petitioners were restrained from performing their duties arbitrarily. It has been further alleged that the petitioners were also not paid the salaries for the period from 09.01.1993 to 23.03.1995, though they served as the Kok-borok Teacher at their respective place of posting. The petitioners also received notice in respect to the vigilance inquiry under CR Case No.3/Nil/07 and accordingly the petitioners attended the Vigilance Officer in his office, but no outcome was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioners also received notice in respect to the vigilance inquiry under CR Case No.3/Nil/07 and accordingly the petitioners attended the Vigilance Officer in his office, but no outcome was communicated to the petitioner. As a similarly situated person who was also appointed as the Kok-borok Teacher in the same process and by the same notification and who had also worked till 23.03.1995 had challenged that action of the respondents by filing a writ petition being Civil Rule 331 of 1996 [Harish Chandra Reang vs. State of Tripura], in reply to the writ petition, the state-respondents filed a copy of the vigilance report where it was found that the Secretary, ICAT and the former Director of School Education has clearly stated that under the File No.F.1(1-13)-DSE/93(L-2) he had signed the offers of the petitioners and the offer so issued in favour of the petitioner was genuine. By the judgment and order dated 19.09.2000, the Gauhati High Court which at the relevant point of time had the territorial jurisdiction over the state, directed the respondent No.2 to act as per the report of the vigilance but the respondent No.2 did not act in compliance of the said order. However, the state had preferred a writ appeal being WA No.16 of 2001. While disposing the said writ appeal by the judgment and order dated 19.06.2007, a division bench of the Gauhati High Court directed the respondent No.2 to complete the process as regards the reinstatement of Harish Chandra Reang within a period of 6(Six) months from the date of the said order. The respondent No.2 again disobeyed the direction of the Gauhati High Court. Consequence thereof, Harish Chandra Reang filed a fresh writ petition being W.P.(C) 174 of 2008. During pendency of the said writ petition, on 25.07.2008 the respondent No.2 issued the memorandum under No.F.12(60)-SE/LA/2008 directing Harish Chandra Reang to join his original place of posting immediately, as from the vigilance report nothing adverse had revealed against Harish chandra Reang. By the said memorandum, it has been made clear that he would get the salaries for the period from 01.01.1993 till date. 4. On the basis of the said outcome, one Jayanta Debbarma, a person who was similarly circumstanced, approached the Gauhati High Court by filing another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.07 of 2009. By the said memorandum, it has been made clear that he would get the salaries for the period from 01.01.1993 till date. 4. On the basis of the said outcome, one Jayanta Debbarma, a person who was similarly circumstanced, approached the Gauhati High Court by filing another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.07 of 2009. By the judgment and order dated 07.09.2015, this Court passed the order inter alia: “As it appears from the counter of the State Respondents that the appointment letter is not a forged one and even on enquiry by the vigilance Authority in its report specifically stated that 22 numbers of Kok-borok teacher in-question for tempering the place of posting in their offer of appointment according to their choice and joining their respective place of posting do not appear to be established meaning thereby that the petitioner did not forge the offer of appointment and when some other persons like the petitioner have already been allowed to join and discharged their duties, it is not clear why the present petitioner should be deprived.” It has been further observed in the judgment thus: “the respondents to enquire the grievance of the petitioner and if it was found that the petitioner Sri Jayanta Debbarma is also similarly situated person as Harish Ch Reang is that case the respondent should be allowed the petitioner to join to his original place of posting and discharge his duties. The Hon'ble Court also directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of 4 weeks.” 5. On the same subject-matter, there were other writ petitions being W.P.(C)No.627 of 2015 (Shri Dilip Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura & Others), W.P.(C)No.659 of 2015 (Shri Radhakrishna Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura & Others), W.P. (C)No.699 of 2015 (Smt. Lamaku Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura & Others), W.P.(C)No.700 of 2015 (Shri Rabi Charan Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura & Others), W.P.(C)No.701 of 2015 (Shri Santosh Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura & Others), W.P.(C)No.77 of 2016 (Jiten @ Jitendra Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura & Others) and W.P.(C)No.31 of 2016 (Smti. Chandra Laxmi Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura & Others) and those were disposed by this court by the common judgment and order dated 04.03.2016 directing the state-respondents to make necessary inquiry or scrutiny and if it is found that the petitioners are similarly circumstanced/situated like Harish Ch. Chandra Laxmi Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura & Others) and those were disposed by this court by the common judgment and order dated 04.03.2016 directing the state-respondents to make necessary inquiry or scrutiny and if it is found that the petitioners are similarly circumstanced/situated like Harish Ch. Reang who has been allowed to join his original place of posting as the Kok-borok Teacher by the memorandum under No.F.12(360)-SE/LA/2008 dated 25.07.2008, then the petitioners shall also be allowed to join in their original place of posting for discharging their duties. Since the petitioners were not aware of the said development or the vigilance report, they could not approach this court. The petitioners have made endeavour to explain the delay in filing the writ petitions. As the state has clearly submitted that these writ petitions are covered by the decisions as rendered by this court in those writ petitions, direction in the similar terms are being passed disposing these writ petitions. The respondents, particularly the respondent No.2 is directed to make necessary inquiry or scrutiny and if it is found that the petitioners are also similarly circumstanced/situated like Harish Ch. Reang, who has been allowed to join his original place of posting as the Kok-borok Teacher, by the memorandum under No.F.12(360)-SE/LA/2008 dated 25.07.2008 (Annexure-G to that writ petition), then the petitioners shall be allowed to join at their place of posting as reflected in their offer of appointment, for discharging their duties and they shall be also given the similar benefit as has been given to Harish Chandra Reang, the other Kok-borok Teacher as stated. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the day when a copy of this order shall be furnished by the petitioners to the respondent No.2. The other orders shall be passed in terms of the order dated 07.09.2015 delivered in W.P. (C)No.07 of 2009 as the respondents are themselves admitted that the cases of the petitioners in this batch of the writ petitions are covered by the judgments as above. 6. With this observation and direction all these petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.