JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. None appeared for the respondent Nos. 2 and 5. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a substitute chowkidar in the Public M.E School in Karimganj district for a period of 90(ninety) days w.e.f. 01.01.1995 against a leave vacancy of his father and thereafter his services were extended from time to time up to 01.09.1996. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner went on voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 02.09.1996 and by the order dated 21.01.1998 of the District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service. Subsequently, on 31.03.2001, the services of the petitioner was adjusted against the vacant post which was earlier held by his father. 3. In the meantime, the post which was being held by the petitioner was advertised on 23.05.1998 and pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said post and appeared in the interview held on 04.11.1998. In the said selection, the Selection Committee selected the petitioner for the said post and the particulars of the petitioner were forwarded to the Director, Elementary Education for its approval. Consequent upon such selection, it is the case of the petitioner that the service of the petitioner was adjusted against the post which the petitioner has been held continuously since 01.01.1995. 4. But when the petitioner claimed the salary by submitting the bills before the Ramkrishna Nagar Sub-Treasury, an objection was raised by the Treasury Officer on the ground that the approval of the State Level Empowered Committee has not been made in respect of the appointment of the petitioner. Challenging the objection raised by the Treasury Officer, the petitioner approached this Court by preferring a writ petition, being WP(C) No.9785/2003 and this Court by the order dated 06.08.2004 had directed the Treasury Officer, Ramkrishna Nagar Sub-Treasury to consider the recommendation of the official respondents and to pass appropriate order relating to release of salary of the petitioner. It was further provided in the said order that in the event of non release of salary of the petitioner, the Treasury Officer was directed to pass a speaking order assigning reasons thereof. 5. It was further provided in the said order that in the event of non release of salary of the petitioner, the Treasury Officer was directed to pass a speaking order assigning reasons thereof. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the aforesaid order dated 06.08.2004 of this Court in WP(C) No.9785/2003, inter-alia providing that the Treasury Officer, Ramkrishna Nagar Sub-Treasury shall consider the recommendation made by the official respondents and pass appropriate order relating to release of the salary of the petitioner and in the event of non-payment of the salary to pass appropriate speaking order, no such order has been passed by the Treasury Officer. On the other hand, when the petitioner had submitted his subsequent bills for release of the salary, on 13.08.2004, the Treasury Officer again raised an objection on 16.08.2004 on the ground that the clearance of Administrative Department is not available in the present case. To this effect, the writ petitioner annexes the objection of the Treasury Officer as Annexure-18 to the writ petition, which mentions that “clearance from Administrative Department wanting as per instruction laid in Finance Assam W.T No.BW.21/99/90-A dated 21.01.2004” and the same was dated 16.08.2004. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that the District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj by referring to a letter dated 24.03.2008 of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam had written a letter to the Headmaster of Public M.E School on 01.04.2008 asking the Headmaster to appear before him on 05.04.2008 along with a detail report regarding non-payment of salary to the petitioner and also to submit the original copies of the appointment letter and proceeding books. It is stated that in compliance of the said letter dated 01.04.2008, the Headmaster of the Public M.E School submitted a detail report by enclosing all relevant records. The Headmaster also reported that the petitioner is providing regular services as a chowkidar and issued a certificate to that effect. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in which the petitioner was appointed, this Court is of the prima-facie view that the appointment of the petitioner is neither against any non-existent post nor the said appointment is per-se illegal. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in which the petitioner was appointed, this Court is of the prima-facie view that the appointment of the petitioner is neither against any non-existent post nor the said appointment is per-se illegal. It is not denied that the petitioner had been appointed to the post pursuant to an advertisement and selection held by the authorities and the recommendation of the selection had been duly forwarded to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam for its approval. But, it is another matter that for whatever reason it may be, the said approval of the Director is not available on record. If the procedure requires that the Director gives its approval to the recommendation of the selection held by following the due procedure of law, the Director has a legal duty to accord such approval or if in the opinion of the Director the approval is not required to be given, the Director has a legal duty to pass appropriate order justifying the same. Merely sitting over the matter and not taking into consideration the requirement of giving the approval, cannot be relied upon by the respondent authorities to term that the appointment given to the petitioner was illegal or invalid. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the respondent authorities having failed to produce any material to indicate that the appointment of the petitioner as a chowkidar was illegal or has been made without following the due procedure of law, it cannot be held that the said appointment of the petitioner is unsustainable or that he has not entitled to the payment of salary and allowances for the services that he has been rendering. 9. At this stage, Mr. J. Abedin, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department relies upon a judgment of this Court in Harendra Ch Nath & Others –vs- State of Tripura & Others reported in 2013 (2) GLT 1094, wherein this Court has provided that for non-payment of salary, the concerned employee can claim the salary only from a period which is three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. 10. 10. Although, the present writ petition being WP(C) No.4931/2012 had been filed in the year 2012, but it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner for the purpose of payment of salary had also filed an earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.9785/2003. In such view of the matter, even by following the proposition of law laid down in the Hemanta Kumar Das (Supra), the petitioner is entitled to his salary for a period from three years prior to the filing of the writ petition being WP(C) No.9785/2003. 11. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the given facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner was appointed by following the due procedure of law against the vacant existing post and he has been serving to the full satisfaction of all concerned continuously and without any break, the respondents are to give the salary and allowances to the petitioner from a period of three years prior to the filing of the earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.9785/2003. 12. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.