ORDER : 1. The sole question, which calls for consideration in this writ petition, is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to payment of regular salary, past and present, in the post of Assistant Teacher of P.B. Dhirdatta Higher Secondary School with effect from January, 2006? 2. The facts of the case are hardly in dispute. The petitioner was admittedly included in the select list dated 8-8-1998 prepared by the District Level Selection Board for the post of Assistant Teacher in respect of Nalbari District. The relevant portion of his appointment order dated 30-10-1998 issued by the i/c Inspector of Schools, NDC, Nalbari is in the following terms: “ORDER On recommendation of District Level Selection Board and subject to discharge without notice and without assigning any reasons thereof, Sri/Smti Pradip Kr. Sarma, BA of Village Bandigheli is temporarily appointed as Assistant Teacher, P.B. Dhidatta Higher S. School against the resultant vacancy against upgradation of principal. Sd/- A. Choudhury, I/C Inspector of Schools, NDC Nalbari.” 3. Subsequently, by the order dated 11-5-1999, he was allowed to draw his salaries in the scale of pay of Rs. 3,580-8750/- plus other allowances as admissible under the rules with effect from the date of joining. As this order is likely to throw light of the nature of appointment of the petitioner, the relevant part of the said order is reproduced herein below: “ORDER Shri Pradip Kumar Sarma, who has been appointed as Asst. Teacher in P.B. Dhirdutta H.S. School vide this Office Memo No. APPTT/98700-7 dated 30-10-98 against the resultant vacancy of Principal of the School is hereby allowed to draw his salaries in the scale of pay of Rs. 3580-8750/- P.M. plus other allowances as admissible under rules with effect from the date of his joining. The expenditure will be incurred from the balance amount of the salaries of Principal. Sd/- S.C. Sarma, Inspector of Schools, N.D.C. Nalbari.” 4. Apparently, the petitioner has been drawing regular salary till December, 2006 whereafter payment was abruptly stopped. When he applied for his General Provident Fund Account in the year 2006, the Principal of the school submitted a statement of his particulars to the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari in the month of February, 2006, who then forwarded it to the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 8-10-2007. When he applied for his General Provident Fund Account in the year 2006, the Principal of the school submitted a statement of his particulars to the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari in the month of February, 2006, who then forwarded it to the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 8-10-2007. But the GPF number has not been allotted to him till now. Since then, he has been approaching the respondent authorities time and again to release his salary and allot his GPF account number, but without any success. This is how he filed this writ petition. 5. Opposing the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 in his affidavit states that the petitioner was appointed against the resultant future vacancy by the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari vide the order dated 30-10-1998 in the school. According to the answering respondent, the post of Principal of Higher Secondary School is filled up by promotion from amongst Vice-Principal, subject teachers and graduate teachers having 17 years of teaching experience; he was thus appointed against a non-existent post. It is pointed out by the answering respondent that the Accountant General (AG), Assam allotted the GPF Fund number only to the incumbents having regular appointment; he is thus not entitled to allotment of GPF account number. As per the Service Rules, the select list is valid only for one year from the date of its publication. In the instant case, submits the answering respondent, the select list was published on 8-8-1998 which expired on 7-8-1999 and, as such, adjustment of the petitioner after 14 years of publication of the select list is not justified. It is also contended by the answering respondents that the petitioner cannot get any relief from this Court on the basis of relief granted to someone else if he is otherwise not entitled to under the law. 6. Having heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U.K. Goswami, the learned standing counsel for the Education (Secondary) Department, Assam and Mr. R.K. Adhikari, the learned standing counsel for Finance Department, the question posed in the beginning must be answered in the negative. 6. Having heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U.K. Goswami, the learned standing counsel for the Education (Secondary) Department, Assam and Mr. R.K. Adhikari, the learned standing counsel for Finance Department, the question posed in the beginning must be answered in the negative. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was duly selected after going through due process of selection, and was accordingly posted in the post of Assistant Teacher whereafter his service was regularised with due procedure, and stoppage of his salary after more than seven years is, therefore, illegal and arbitrary, more so, when his appointment was against a substantive post. He takes me to the order dated 4-12-2003 of this Court in Sri Dwijendra Kumar Das vs. State of Assam and Others, W.P. © No. 4963 of 1999, the order dated 17-3-2009 passed by this Court in W.P. © No. 2036 of 2008 (Smt. Rina Devi vs. State of Assam and Others) and the order dated 18-3-2009 passed by this Court in W.P. © No. 1274/2008 (Smt. Rina Devi vs. State of Assam and Others) to fortify his submissions. 7. Mr. U.K. Goswami, the learned standing counsel for the Education (Secondary) Department, Assam supports the decision of the respondent authorities in not releasing the salary of the petitioner and in not allotting GPF account number to him and submit that when his appointment itself was against a non-existent post, there is no question of payment of salary or of allotting GPF account number to him. He contends that appointment of a person against a non-existent post is no appointment in the eye of law and is, therefore, a nullity/non-est; persons whose appointment is illegal cannot, therefore, claim salary. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Mr. R.K. Adhikari, the learned standing counsel for the Finance Department, endorses the contentions of the learned standing counsel for the Education (Secondary) Department and submits that the petitioner, who was appointed against a non-existent post, cannot claim salary: his appointment is not an irregular appointment, but is an illegal appointment. 8. What is worthy of note n this case is the nature of appointment of the petitioner. 8. What is worthy of note n this case is the nature of appointment of the petitioner. He was apparently selected for the post of Assistant Teacher in respect of Nalbari District on the recommendation of the District Level Selection Board on 8-8-1998. However, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher of the school only on 30-10-1998 against “the resultant vacancy of against upgradation of Principal” after the expiry of the select list. Subsequently, by the order dated 11-5-1999, the Inspector of Schools, NDC, Nalbari allowed him to draw his salaries in the pay scale of Rs. 3580-8750/- plus other allowances in the post he was appointed “against the resultant vacancy of Principal of the school”. In the first place, he was given the appointment on the basis of the select list dated 8-8-1998, which had already expired as there is no evidence of extension of the select list. Secondly, he was appointed against the resultant vacancy of the Principal, which is a higher post, and not against the substantive post of Assistant Teacher for which the post was advertised and he was selected. This necessarily leads me to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had all along been appointed against a non-existent post after the expiry of the select list. He could not have been appointed against the post of Principal, which is obviously a higher post, for which he was never selected or considered for appointment in the recruitment process, if there be such recruitment process. What is the effect of an appointment made against a non-existent post came up before the Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 1 . The observations of the Apex Court are found at paragraph 13 of the judgment, which read thus: “13. So far as the question of confirmation of these employees whose entry itself was illegal and void, is concerned, it is to be noted that question of confirmation or regularisation of an irregularly appointed candidate would arise if the candidate concerned is appointed in an irregular manner or on ad hoc basis against an available vacancy which is already sanctioned. So far as the question of confirmation of these employees whose entry itself was illegal and void, is concerned, it is to be noted that question of confirmation or regularisation of an irregularly appointed candidate would arise if the candidate concerned is appointed in an irregular manner or on ad hoc basis against an available vacancy which is already sanctioned. But if the initial entry itself is unauthorised and is not against any sanctioned vacancy, question of regularising the incumbent on such a non-existing vacancy would never survive for consideration and even if such purported regularisation or confirmation is given it would be an exercise in futility. It would amount to decorating a still-born baby. Under these circumstances, there was no occasion to regularise them or to give them valid confirmation. The so-called exercise of confirming these employees, therefore, remained a nullity. The learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the chart showing the details of appointments of the appellants concerned as found at Annexure XXII at pp. 243 to 255 of the Paper-Book and also as a specimen a subsequent order of confirmation as found at p. 256 in the case of Ashwani Kumar. It was submitted that such confirmation orders were also given to number of employees who were initially appointed as daily-wagers/T.B. Assistants by Dr Mallick. Our attention was also invited to the letter of Joint Secretary Shri Anant Shukla written to the Superintendent, T.B. Hospital, Koelwar, Bhojpur on 17-10-1984 which is found as Annexure X at p. 127 of the Paper-Book to show that steps were taken for ratification of the orders of appointment of the daily-wage employees as per the direction of Deputy Director, T.B./Health Services, Bihar. As we have seen earlier when the initial appointments by Dr. Mallick so far as these daily-wagers were concerned, were illegal there was no question of regularising such employees and no right accrued to them as they were not confirmed on available clear vacancies under the Scheme. It passes one’s comprehension as to how against 2500 sanctioned vacancies confirmation could have been given to 6000 employees. The whole exercise remained in the realm of an unauthorised adventure. Nothing could come out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Zero multiplied by zero remains zero. It passes one’s comprehension as to how against 2500 sanctioned vacancies confirmation could have been given to 6000 employees. The whole exercise remained in the realm of an unauthorised adventure. Nothing could come out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Zero multiplied by zero remains zero. Consequently no sustenance can be drawn by the appellants from these confirmation orders issued to them by Dr Mallick on the basis of the directions issued by the authorities concerned at the relevant time. It would amount to regularisation of back-door entries which were vitiated from the very inception. It is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that the vacancies on the Scheme had nothing to do with regular posts. Whether they are posts or vacancies they must be backed up by budgetary provisions so as to be included within the permissible infrastructure of the Scheme. Any posting which is dehors the budgetary grant and on a non-existing vacancy would be outside the sanctioned scheme and would remain totally unauthorised. No right would accrue to the incumbent of such an imaginary or shadow vacancy.” 9. It must, however, be pointed out that the instant case is not about regularization of, or confirmation to, a post; this is about non-payment of salaries from January, 2006. Be that as it may, unless he has been appointed against a regular post of Assistant Teacher, for which he was selected, how can he claim a regular salary from a non-existent post? He cannot obviously be regularised in the resultant vacancy of Principal of the School against which he was never selected. As he was appointed against the resultant vacancy of the post of Principal of this School, once this post has been filled up (it must have been filled up by now or much earlier in point of time), where would he be accommodated? He must have become a persona non grata as and when this post of Principal was filled up by a regular appointee; it is quite possible that payment of salary must have been stopped after the post of the Principal was filled up. In that view of the matter, the question of payment of regular salary to the petitioner does not and cannot arise. 10. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. In that view of the matter, the question of payment of regular salary to the petitioner does not and cannot arise. 10. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. The parties are, however, directed to bear their respective.