JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. B. Sinha, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respondents are represented by Mr. N. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the department of Elementary Education. 2. The challenge here is to the speaking order dated 4.7.2011 (Annexure-18), whereby the Commissioner & Secretary of the Elementary Education Department declared that the petitioners were illegally appointed during the ban period without clearance of the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) and on that basis, the claim made by the petitioners was rejected. The speaking order was passed in pursuant to the Court’s direction dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure-14) in the WP(C) No.2203/2001. 3. This litigation has a long history and therefore, few earlier events will have to be noted to appreciate the basis of the impugned speaking order. 4. Following the exercise undertaken for appointment of teachers in the L.P. Schools of Karimganj district, 3 lists were prepared and the names of the two petitioners are reflected at Sl. No.5 & 26 respectively, in the document dated 27.9.1988 (Annexure-1). The right of appointment did not automatically flow from the enlistment but those shortlisted by the Sub-Divisional Advisory Board, were required to produce their mark-sheets and other testimonials before the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO) and D.I. of Schools, Karimganj and on their failure to produce the certificates, their claim to appointment was to be forfeited. It was also mentioned that, one year is the normal validity period of the list. 5. Those shortlisted who produced their certificates were appointed. Thus few of the left out persons approached the High Court to claim appointment on the basis of their empanelment. The two petitioners here were not amongst those litigants but this Court on 13.2.1991 (Annexure-2), declared in those cases that until the 3 lists for Karimganj district are exhausted, no outsider is to be appointed for the vacancies in the district. 6. When no appointment resulted, the aggrieved group launched agitational programme after which the DEE on 29.6.1993 (Annexure-4) conveyed that appointments should be made from the panel list to avoid contempt of the Court’s judgment. Even then, none were appointed. Thus Abdus Shakur Choudhury and 19 others filed the Civil Rule No.2618/1993 in the High Court. This case was disposed of on 29.4.1994 (Annexure-5) by directing consideration of appointment of the petitioners, on the basis of the DEE’s letter dated 29.6.1993 (Annexure-4). 7. Even then, none were appointed. Thus Abdus Shakur Choudhury and 19 others filed the Civil Rule No.2618/1993 in the High Court. This case was disposed of on 29.4.1994 (Annexure-5) by directing consideration of appointment of the petitioners, on the basis of the DEE’s letter dated 29.6.1993 (Annexure-4). 7. No activity was however seen for around 7 years in pursuant to the direction issued by the Court on 29.4.1994 but on 7.2.2001, the BEEO A.C. Das, who was functioning as the I/c D.I. of Schools, Karimganj issued the so called appointment orders [Annexure-6 & 7], whereby, the petitioners were temporarily appointed as fixed pay teacher, in the 1248 Raja Rampur L.P. School and Kalkalighat L.P. School respectively in the Karimganj district. 8. However within 20 days of the appointment orders, the District Adult Education Officer on 28.2.2001 declared that the BEEO, South Karimganj A.C. Das had unauthorizedly appointed persons but no record of such appointment, is available in the office of the D.I. of Schools. It was also observed in that letter that after the regular D.I. of Schools V.L. Jouata retired on 31.3.2000, no appointment orders were ever issued, from the office of the D.I. of Schools. Thus the DAO said that the so called appointment order(s) issued by A.C. Das, should not be acted upon. 9. Aggrieved by the above obstruction caused to their appointment, the petitioners filed the WP(C) No.2203/2001 which was disposed of on 16.11.2006 ((Annexure-14). The learned Judge noted the background of the case as well as the non-availability of any official records, in the office of the D.I. of Schools, Karimganj, on the appointment of the petitioners. Thus an enquiry was ordered to determine whether, the petitioners were duly appointed, in accordance with law. ENQUIRY FINDINGS 10. Following the above direction in the WP(C) No.2203/2001, an enquiry was made into the circumstances of the appointment. The Deputy Secretary of Department in his report dated 27.4.2011 (Annexure-17) referred to the stipulation made in the 27.9.1988 document about the need for verification of the marks and other testimonials and the fact that 46 of the shortlisted persons (including the present petitioners), failed to appear before the D.I. and DEEO for which, they were not appointed. It was also noted that appointment order(s) were unauthorizedly issued by the BEEO, A.C. Das while he was holding charge of the office of the D.I. of Schools. It was also noted that appointment order(s) were unauthorizedly issued by the BEEO, A.C. Das while he was holding charge of the office of the D.I. of Schools. Moreover this was done during the ban period without securing the approval of the SLEC. 11. On scrutiny of the enquiry report dated 27.4.2011 (Annexure-17) and after consideration of the plea taken by the petitioners before the Inquiry Officer, the Commissioner of the Department, under the impugned order held that appointments were made unauthorizedly by the BEEO. Moreover this was done during the ban period without securing approval of the authority as well as of the SLEC. Thus the appointments were found to be unauthorizedly made and on that basis, the claim of the petitioners were rejected. PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS 12.1 Assailing the legality of the speaking order, the learned Counsel Mr. B. Sinha submits that when the petitioners were shortlisted by the Sub-Divisional Advisory Committee in the year 1988, the qualification for appointment under Rule 3(b)(iii) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1977 Rules”) was matriculation and no minimum marks were stipulated. Therefore, reference to the requirement of 40% marks in the HSLC examination in the 27.4.2011 inquiry report (Annexure-17), is questioned by the petitioners. 12.2 The Counsel for the petitioners submits that while the ban on appointment was imposed by the Finance Department on 22.12.1999, the same will not effect the appointments made on Court direction and accordingly the wisdom of the Commissioner’s impugned order dated 4.7.2011, is questioned by the petitioners. 12.3 The petitioners contend that when the high Court had issued direction on 13.2.1991 (Annexure-2) for exhaustion of the list where the petitioners were enlisted, the appointment made from the said list, cannot be said to be unauthorized. RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS 13.1 On the other hand, Mr. N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the Department of Elementary Education submits that enlistment of the names in the document prepared on 27.09.1988 by the Sub-Divisional Advisory Committee, will not confer any right of appointment since, it was categorically stipulated that the shortlisted persons, will have to produce their testimonials for verification and on failure thereto, they will forfeit their claim for appointment. As the petitioners had not produced their testimonials, Mr. Sarma submits that they cannot claim any right to appointment, just by their enlistment. As the petitioners had not produced their testimonials, Mr. Sarma submits that they cannot claim any right to appointment, just by their enlistment. 13.2 Since the document itself stipulated that the list of 27.09.1988 will remain valid for a year only, the departmental lawyer contends that the so called appointment made after 13 years, can hardly be considered to be a legal move. 13.3 As the ban on appointment was imposed by the State on 06.12.1999, the authority of the BEEO to make appointment, without approval of the SLEC is questioned by the departmental lawyer and on that basis it is submitted that, the impugned order requires no interference. DISCUSSION 14. During the State’s ban period if appointments are made on Court’s direction, those could perhaps be permissible. But in this matter, the Court never issued any direction for appointment of the petitioners in the Civil Rule No.2698/1993 or in any other case. In fact, a negative direction was issued on 13.02.1991 in the Civil Rule No.2397/1990 (Abdul Shakur Choudhury Vs. State of Assam) where the High Court stopped appointment of outsiders until the 3 lists prepared in 1988/1990, are exhausted. Therefore the appointment of the petitioners made on 07.02.2001 was certainly hit by the ban order issued by the Government on 06.12.1999. 15. The petitioners’ claim for appointment is made on the basis that their names were included in the document prepared on 27.09.1988. Therefore it has to be seen as to whether any right of appointment would accrue from enlistment. When the Sub-Divisional Advisory Board shortlisted the names, the concerned persons were required to produce their testimonials for verification and on failure to do so, the consideration for appointment will stand forfeited. Admittedly, the petitioners never produced their testimonials for verification and therefore whatever right may have accrued to them on account of their empanelment in the 27.09.1988 document, the same got forfeited by their failure to appear before the DEEO and the D.I. of Schools, Karimganj. 16. Moreover, the Chairman of the Sub-Divisional Advisory Board had clearly declared that the document would be valid for a year only and nothing is brought before the Court to indicate that the list was ever extended beyond 1989. The panel cannot operate indefinitely to make appointment to all future vacancies. 16. Moreover, the Chairman of the Sub-Divisional Advisory Board had clearly declared that the document would be valid for a year only and nothing is brought before the Court to indicate that the list was ever extended beyond 1989. The panel cannot operate indefinitely to make appointment to all future vacancies. When the life of the list got exhausted by September, 1989, the law does not allow belated utilisation of such list, 12 years later, to make appointment. If this is upheld, the right of appointment to future generation will be severely curtailed and this will also be inconsistent with the requirement of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 17. The State’s ban order was operating when the petitioners were appointed but clearance was never taken from the SLEC for the appointment made on 07.02.2001. Therefore on this count itself, the impugned order cannot be faulted. That apart, the unauthorised appointment by the BEEO, while he was temporarily discharging the duties of D.I. of Schools, cannot also be overlooked by the Court. The District Adult Education Officer noted in his letter that no record of appointment was found in the office of the D.I. of Schools and in fact no appointment from that office was ever made, after the retirement of the regular D.I. of Schools on 31.03.2000. Therefore the unauthorized and perhaps fabricated appointment by the BEEO A.C. Das was noticed and for that, the higher authorities quickly intervened within 20 days and ordered everyone to not to act on the unauthorised appointments, issued by the BEEO on 07.02.2001. 18. The eligibility criteria under Rule 3(b)(iii) of the 1977 Rules at the relevant time may not have stipulated any minimum marks in the matriculation examination, but nevertheless, the petitioners were required to produce their educational testimonials for verification, in terms of the stipulation made on 27.09.1988 (Annexure-2), by the Chairman of the Sub-Divisional Advisory Board. Since they failed to produce their certificates for verification, they would lose their right to claim appointment on the basis of enlistment of their names, by the Advisory Board. 19. The selection criterion has undergone drastic changes in the last two decades and candidates who meet the criterion are available in abundance. Therefore there can be no legal justification to favour appointment on the basis of an exercise undertaken around 30 years earlier. 20. 19. The selection criterion has undergone drastic changes in the last two decades and candidates who meet the criterion are available in abundance. Therefore there can be no legal justification to favour appointment on the basis of an exercise undertaken around 30 years earlier. 20. In the above circumstances, the rejection of the petitioners’ claim under the impugned speaking order (Annexure-18) is found to be as merited and therefore I hold that no case is made out for intervention by the Court. The writ petition is accordingly found devoid of merit and the same is thus dismissed. No cost.