JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. At the outset Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that despite the best efforts taken by him, the respondents have failed to file any reply. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents had earlier instructed him that the case is covered by a previous judgment of this Court but they have not given ‘any written instruction’ as yet. He has further submitted that in other analogous cases the written instruction stating that the cases are covered by a previous judgment of this Court in Jayanta Debbarma v. State of Tripura [judgment and order dated 07.09.2016, delivered in WP(C). No. 07 of 2009], is on the respective records. 3. Be that as it may, this Court has scrutinized the records and finds that the petitioner is similarly situated like Jayanta Debbarma, the petitioner in WP(C). No. 07 of 2009. The petitioner had received the offer of appointment under No. F.1(113)-DSE/92 dated 01.01.1993, issued by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition) and by the Memorandum No. F.2(6)/IS-UDP/1993/7766-788 dated 21.10.1993, the Inspector of Schools directed him along with 10 others to continue their service the Tulamura High School, Udaipur w.e.f. 01.11.1993. Copy of the said memorandum dated 21.10.1993 is available at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 4. The petitioner had continued the service accordingly at the place of his place of posting till 31.03.1995. Thereafter, he received the memorandum No. F.1(1-13)-DSE/93(L-2) dated 24.03.1995 from the respondent No. 2 which had directed the petitioner not to attend the school on the ground that his offer of appointment did not contain any place of posting. By that memorandum the petitioner was restrained from performing his duties which action, according to the petitioner, is illegal and arbitrary. 5. The memorandum dated 24.03.1995 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) further reveals that one inquiry in respect of the appointment of 287 Kok-borok teachers who are appointed on 09.01.1993 did commence. Finally after the inquiry, the respondent No. 2 issued one show cause notice dated 23.08.1994 (Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition). But no action was taken against the petitioner at any point of time. Finally after the inquiry, the respondent No. 2 issued one show cause notice dated 23.08.1994 (Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition). But no action was taken against the petitioner at any point of time. On 15.12.1997 a notice was issued to the petitioner in reference to the vigilance case No. 20/Vig/1993, asking him to attend the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance on 16.12.1997. The petitioner duly appeared before the said Vigilance Officer, but the petitioner did not know the outcome of such inquiry at all. 6. Thereafter, one Harish Ch. Reang who was appointed in the same batch as the Kok-borok teacher along with the petitioner, filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court, [Agartala Bench] which had the territorial jurisdiction to exercise over the subject matter and the said writ petition being Civil Rule 331 of 1996 was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 19.09.2000 directing the respondent No. 2 to take action as per the report of the vigilance officer but the respondent No. 2 did not comply the said order. 7. Sri Harish Ch. Reang, the said petitioner subsequently filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench being W.A. No. 16 of 2001 on 19.06.2007. The Division Bench by their judgment dated 19.06.2007 directed the respondent No. 2 to complete the process regarding the appointment of the said writ petitioner within 6 months from the day of the said order as the respondent No. 2 did not act in terms of the earlier order. Sri Harish Ch. Reang further filed another writ petition in the Gauhati High Court being WP(C). No. 174 of 2008. During pendency of the WP(C). No. 174 of 2008, the respondent No. 2 issued the memorandum No. F.12(60)-SE/LA/2008 dated 25.07.2008 directing the said petitioner namely, Harish Ch. Reang to join to his original place of posting. 8. It is thus clear that in the vigilance inquiry there was nothing adverse against the petitioner and the said petitioner was allowed to join in his place of posting and he has been receiving the pay and allowance. He had also received salaries for the period from 01.01.1993 till his subsequent joining. The present petitioner was also waiting for the similar treatment but such treatment did not come forth even after such long wait. 9. He had also received salaries for the period from 01.01.1993 till his subsequent joining. The present petitioner was also waiting for the similar treatment but such treatment did not come forth even after such long wait. 9. In the meanwhile, one Sri Jayant Debbarma similarly circumstanced Kok-borok teacher approached the Gauhati High Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C). No. 07 of 2009. While disposing the said writ petition by the judgment and order dated 07.09.2015, this Court has observed thus: “18. As it appears from the counter of the State respondents that the appointment letter is not a forged one and even on inquiry, 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 WP(C). No. 7 of 2009 Page 8 of 8 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.” 10. According to the petitioner he is entitled to the same relief being similarly circumstanced like the said petitioner. The State has not filed any reply contending that in the vigilance report there is anything adverse against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has referred a series of subsequent decisions of this Court the similar subject matter, but this Court does not find it relevant to refer all such judgments passed in the series of cases as referred by the petitioner. 11. In those cases, the respondents were directed to make necessary inquiry or scrutiny and if it is found that the petitioners are similarly circumstanced like Sri Harish Ch. Reang who was allowed to join in his initial place of posting as Kok-borok teacher, the petitioners shall also be treated similarly. 12. This Court does not find any difficulty in passing such order in respect of the petitioner. It is, accordingly, directed that the respondent shall make due scrutiny of the vigilance report and if it is found that the petitioner is similarly situated like that of Sri Harish Ch. Reang or Sri Jayanta Debbarma, the petitioner shall be treated similarly. 12. This Court does not find any difficulty in passing such order in respect of the petitioner. It is, accordingly, directed that the respondent shall make due scrutiny of the vigilance report and if it is found that the petitioner is similarly situated like that of Sri Harish Ch. Reang or Sri Jayanta Debbarma, the petitioner shall be treated similarly. He shall be allowed to join his place of posting and all the benefits like those petitioners were afforded shall be released in favour of the petitioner. To complete the said exercise the respondents are provided with 3 months time from the day when they would receive a copy of the judgment and order from the petitioner. In the result, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.