JUDGMENT AND ORDER : T. Vaiphei, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for Secondary Education Department. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communications dated 6-4-2011, dated 23.05.2011, dated 26.05.2011 and dated 20.06.2011 directing her to show-cause to as to why her services should not be terminated as an Assistant Teacher. Hence, she is filing this writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, she appeared in the selection test for the post of Assistant Teacher in response to the advertisement issued by the District Level Selection Board in the year 1988, the result of which was declared on 12.04.1988. The name of the petitioner appeared in S. No. 22 in the select-list, but she was not appointed immediately whereupon she filed Civil Rule being Civil Rule No. 1772/1991, which was disposed of by this Court on 25.03.1991 with a direction to grant relief to the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed in Civil Rule No. 2276/1990. When the order dated 25.03.1991 was not immediately complied with, she again approached this Court by filing contempt petition being COP (C) No. 237/1995 against the respondent officials. While the contempt case was pending, the respondent authorities, in compliance with the order of this Court, through the Respondent No. 4 appointed the petitioner as Assistant Teacher of Kamarkuchi High School. The petitioner immediately joined the post and she has been drawing her salary from 29.06.1995 without any break till now. Notwithstanding this, the respondent authorities issued the impugned communications on the ground that this Court in C.R. No. 5216/1996 had, in the writ petition filed by some third parties, had directed the removal or termination of those teachers whose names were not appeared in the select-list dated 04.01.1995 as per the advertisement published in 1991. The select-list dated 12.04.1998 (Annexure-1) shows that the name of the petitioner found a place at S. No. 22 in the merit list of the candidate for Science Subject. The select-list dated 12.04.1998 (Annexure-1) shows that the name of the petitioner found a place at S. No. 22 in the merit list of the candidate for Science Subject. When the appointment order was not immediately issued, as already noticed, she was constrained to approach this Court in Civil Rule No. 1772/1991, whereupon, this Court after observing that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was covered by the decision of 04.03.1991 passed in Civil Rule No. 2276/1990 and batch directed that there should be a like order in this case as in the said case. This order was never challenged thereafter. When the order was not implemented, the petitioner was again constrained to move this Court in COP (C) No. 237/1995 for not complying with the order of this Court. During the pendency of this contempt proceeding, this Court passed the order dated 19.07.1995 closing the contempt proceeding as the order had been complied with. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner, since then, has been continuing as Assistant Teacher of Kamarkuchi High School by drawing a regular salary. The action taken by the respondent authorities subsequently in issuing notices upon her to show-cause as to why her services should not be terminated as in the impugned order, is not unwarranted. If the respondent authorities are not satisfied with the order of this Court, which has been complied with by them by appointing the petitioner, they ought to have challenged such order in time. In my opinion, to disturb the settled position of the petitioner at this stage is, to say the least, unjustified and smacks of proper non-application of mind. This calls for the interference of this Court. 5. This writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The impugned communication/order dated 06.04.2011 (Annexure-9) issued by the Respondent No. 3, the impugned order dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure-14) issued by the Respondent No. 2, the impugned order dated 26.05.2011 (Annexure-15) issued by the Respondent No. 1 and the impugned order dated 20.06.2011 (Annexure-16) issued by the Respondent No. 1 are hereby quashed. No cost.