JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Ms. P. Ghatak and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.1161 of 2016 [Nanda Rani Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.1199 of 2016 [Anjali Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.1200 of 2016 [Dhambajoy Uchai vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.1232 of 2016 [Hingra Jamatia vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.1233 of 2016 [Sarabala @ Surabala Jamatia vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment as all the writ petitions are covered by a previous decision of this court delivered in Jayanta Debbarma vs. State of Tripura and Others being W.P.(C) No. 07 of 2009 [the judgment and order dated 07.09.2015]. 3. It is an admitted position that all the petitioners were appointed as the Kokborok Teacher by the offer of appointment under No. F.1(1-13)-DSE/92 dated 30.12.1992 [Annexure-A to the writ petition]. Thereafter, they had joined in their respective place of posting as shown in the said memorandum dated 30.12.1992. Suddenly, by the notice dated 24.06.1994 [Annexure-B to the writ petition] the petitioners were informed that in their offer of appointment there was no place of posting mentioned despite that they could manage to join their place of posting where they were serving at that point of time. The petitioners were asked to make their reply by 08.07.1994. 4. All the petitioners duly filed their reply. Thereafter, by the memorandum dated 24.03.1995 [Annexure-D to the writ petition] the petitioners were asked not to attend the school. It has been noted in the said memorandum dated 24.03.1995 that the Government is however considering whether the petitioner would be paid compensation for the period they have unauthorisedly rendered service as Kokborok Teachers. The petitioners had come to know that a vigilance inquiry was initiated to look into their matters. But the petitioners were not aware what happened in the said vigilance inquiry. But from the memorandum under No.F.12(360)-SE/LA/2008 dated 25.07.2008 [Annexure-F to the writ petition] they came to know one Harish Chandra Reang, a similarly circumstanced Kokborok Teacher was directed to join his place of posting where he had earlier joined in terms of the offer of appointment dated 30.12.1992. 5. But from the memorandum under No.F.12(360)-SE/LA/2008 dated 25.07.2008 [Annexure-F to the writ petition] they came to know one Harish Chandra Reang, a similarly circumstanced Kokborok Teacher was directed to join his place of posting where he had earlier joined in terms of the offer of appointment dated 30.12.1992. 5. From the said memorandum, it revealed to the petitioners that said Harish Chandra Reang filed a writ petition being Civil Rule No.331 of 1996 before the Gauhati High Court, Agartala bench which had the territorial jurisdiction with a prayer to quash the memorandum dated 24.03.1995. While disposing the said writ petition by the judgment dated 19.09.2000 it had been directed to consider the case of the petitioner after completing the vigilance inquiry as early as possible. 6. Being aggrieved by the said decision Harish Chandra Reang filed the writ appeal in the division bench of the said High Court being W.A. No.16 of 2011. While disposing the said writ appeal, the division bench had observed as under: “We do not find any infirmity in the direction so given by the learned Single Judge except the fact that no time limit for taking up action by the State respondents has been fixed and the result is, as correctly submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant does not know as to what fate has in store for them.” 7. Finally by the said memorandum dated 25.07.2008, Harish Chandra Reang was asked to join at his original place of posting. Later on, series of the writ petitions were filed by the similarly circumstanced person including one Shri Jayanta Debbarma who by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.07 of 2009 approached this court to give the similar benefit as had been given to Harish Chandra Reang by the respondents as his case was in no way different from the case of Harish Chandra Reang. This court by the judgment dated 07.09.2015 delivered in the said writ petition being W.P.(C) No.07 of 2009 had directed the respondents to inquire the grievances of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is also similarly situated like Harish Chandra Reang, then he should be allowed to join his original place of posting and to discharge his duties. It has been further directed that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of the judgment and appropriate order shall be passed accordingly. 8. Ms. P. Ghatak and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner have submitted that the writ petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are similarly circumstanced as that of Sri Harish Chandra Reang and Sri Jayanta Debbarma and as such they are entitled to get the similar treatment in terms of the previous judgment. In Jayanta Debbarma vs. State of Tripura, (supra) it was observed as under: “[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 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. [19] However, as the petitioner did not discharge his duties after dis-continuation vide memorandum dated 24.03.1995, it would not be proper for this Court to allow him the back salaries particularly when he filed his writ petition after 14 years. [20] Respondents are directed to inquire the grievances of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is also similarly situated like Harish Chandra Reang, then he should be allowed to join to his original place of posting and discharge his duties. The entire exercise shall be completed after examination of the matter within a period of 4 weeks from today and the appropriate order shall be passed as observed by this Court. [21] With the above observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of.” 9. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the state-respondents has fairly submitted that the petitioners in this present batch of writ petitions are similarly circumstanced as that of Jayanta Debbarma and others. [21] With the above observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of.” 9. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the state-respondents has fairly submitted that the petitioners in this present batch of writ petitions are similarly circumstanced as that of Jayanta Debbarma and others. Having regard to the consensus as well as scrutinised the records this court is of the view that all the petitioners are entitled to get the similar directions as provided by this court in Jayanta Debbarma vs. State of Tripura and Others (supra). The respondents are therefore directed to make necessary inquiry and scrutiny and if it is found thereafter that the petitioners are also similarly circumstanced like Harish Chandra Reang who had been allowed to join his original place of posting as the Kokborok Teacher. The petitioners shall be allowed to join to their original place of posting or any other place in the public interest and in the administrative exigencies, for discharging their duties. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the day when a copy of this order be furnished by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, the Director of School Education. It is further directed that the benefits, both pecuniary and service, shall be released in the terms what Sri Harish Chandra Reang had received within such period as stipulated above. 10. With this observation and direction, this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.