JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. L. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. U. Das, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 as well as Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing counsel, Department of Finance, appearing for respondent No. 6. 2. By this writ application, filed on 08.09.2014, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent No. 3, i.e. District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Nalbari, to release salary of the petitioner with effect from May, 2006. The case of the petitioner, in short, as projected in the writ petition is that she is serving as Chowkidar in Barkuriha Girls M.V. School since 2nd of May, 2006 and that, prior to that, she was working in Gandhibari Girls M.E. School, in a Grade-IV post of Chowkidar, on being appointed by order dated 14.09.2000 in a sanctioned post. In a letter dated 01.11.2001, submitted by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, an incumbency list in respect of 80 posts of Chowkidar was enclosed, wherein her name had appeared at Sl. No. 1 against Barkuriha Girls M.V. School. It is pleaded that the name of the petitioner also appeared at Sl. No. 16 of the Estimate for Normalization of Posts of Chowkidar (2003-2004), submitted by the respondent No. 2, i.e., Director of Secondary Education. In the letter dated 10.01.2002, issued by the respondent No. 2, addressed to the respondent No. 3, Government sanction for retention of 26 numbers of posts of Chowkidar, up to 29.02.2002, was conveyed and the list attached thereto contains the name of the petitioner against Barkuriha Girls M.V. School. The 26 numbers of posts of Chowkidar were further retained from 01.03.2002 to 28.02.2003 as indicated in the letter dated 25.09.2002. 26 numbers of posts of Chowkidar in Nalbari District were permanently retained and the name of the petitioner had also figured at Sl. No. 15 thereof. The petitioner had requested the respondent No. 2 by a letter dated 19.08.2005 (Annexure-4) to transfer her from Gandhibari Girls M.E. School to any nearby M.E./M.V. school and, on the basis of the said request of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2, by his letter dated 23.08.2005, requested the respondent No. 3 to take necessary action in that regard. The petitioner had requested the respondent No. 2 by a letter dated 19.08.2005 (Annexure-4) to transfer her from Gandhibari Girls M.E. School to any nearby M.E./M.V. school and, on the basis of the said request of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2, by his letter dated 23.08.2005, requested the respondent No. 3 to take necessary action in that regard. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Barkuriha Girls M.V. School with her own post. She was released on that very date and she submitted her joining report on 05.05.2006 at Barkuriha Girls M.V. School. The respondent No. 5, i.e., Headmaster of Barkuriha Girls M.V. School asked her to sign her attendance on a separate sheet of paper and, from 2010 onwards respondent No. 5 asked her not to sign the Attendance Sheet. She had also handed over the original transfer order to the respondent No. 5 on his request in the last part of May, 2006. Subsequently, though the petitioner had requested the respondent No. 5 to give back the same to her, the same was not handed over to her on the plea that the same had been handed over to respondent No. 3. As her prayer for payment of salary had not been acceded to, the petitioner had filed this writ petition. 3. An affidavit and an additional affidavit were filed by the respondent No. 5. It is stated that in Barkuriha Girls M.V. School there is no Grade-IV employee except one Udhav Das, who was working in the capacity of a Grade-IV employee since prior to 2006 and that he had not received any order or direction from his higher authorities to allow anybody else to join in the school as a Grade-IV employee. It is also pleaded that Udhav Das was appointed on 04.02.1994 by the DEEO, Nalbari, as per approval of the Sub-Division Level Advisory Board accorded in its meeting held on 11.01.1994 vide resolution No. 5. The allegation that the petitioner had given her original appointment letter to him is also denied. The averment that the petitioner was allowed to put her signature in a separate sheet of paper and not to sign in the Attendance Register is also denied. The Daily Attendance Register of teachers from January, 2006 was annexed as Annexure-B in the affidavit and the same was also annexed in the additional affidavit. 4. The averment that the petitioner was allowed to put her signature in a separate sheet of paper and not to sign in the Attendance Register is also denied. The Daily Attendance Register of teachers from January, 2006 was annexed as Annexure-B in the affidavit and the same was also annexed in the additional affidavit. 4. The petitioner had filed reply affidavit to the affidavit as well as additional affidavit filed by respondent No. 5, reiterating the averments made in the writ petition. 5. The affidavit-in-reply was filed on 17.03.2015 and, in the said affidavit, an averment is made that the petitioner was serving till 2010. Perhaps the same is a typographical error as such a statement does not fit into the overall case presented by the petitioner. 6. In the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, it is pleaded that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee and, besides, Managing Committee has no power to appoint any person on honorary basis after the school was provincialised. It is also not the pleaded stand of the petitioner that she had appeared in any selection process and was duly selected. Gandhibari M.E. School is situated in Baksa District under BTAD area and though she was shown transferred to Barkuriha Girls M.V. School with her own post, she did not join in Barkuriha Girls M.V. School. It is pleaded that the petitioner having not been appointed legally she is not entitled to any salary. 7. In the affidavit of respondent No. 3, it is pleaded that the service of the petitioner was regularized during a period of ban on appointment imposed by the Government of Assam, Department of Finance, with effect from 06.12.1999. 8. In the affidavit-in-reply filed against the affidavit of respondent No. 2, the petitioner seeks to justify that there is no delay in filing the writ petition as she had pursued remedies by filing representations before the Government. It is pleaded that there was no vacant post to regularize the service of the petitioner when the petitioner was working on honorary basis in Barkuriha Girls M.V. School and, therefore, her service was regularized in Gandhibari Girls M.E. School. It is contended that no selection or interview is required to be held for the post of unskilled workers in any government office. It is contended that no selection or interview is required to be held for the post of unskilled workers in any government office. It is further pleaded that the respondent No. 5, in collusion with respondent No. 3, had victimized the petitioner. 9. Mr. L. P. Sharma has submitted that despite rendering service, the petitioner has not been paid her salary and this has occasioned, primarily, due to the collusion between the Headmaster and respondent No. 3. The petitioner had earlier received salary and she was not receiving salary only after she had joined Barkuriha Girls M.V. School pursuant to the order dated 02.05.2006. Mr. Sharma has relied on the order dated 16.06.2009, passed by this Court in the case of Gunamoni Sarma vs. State of Assam and Ors. [WP(C) 3308/2007], which is annexed as Annexure-XX in the writ petition and, accordingly, he submits that appropriate direction may be issued to release salary of the petitioner. 10. Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department has submitted that the very appointment of the petitioner is illegal as the regularization order was made during the ban period from 06.12.1999 to 08.03.2001. He has further submitted that there is no material on record to support the plea of the petitioner that she had been appointed by the Managing Committee of the Barkuriha Girls M.V. School. In view of the categorical assertion of the Headmaster of Barkuriha Girls M.V. School that the petitioner had never come to join at Barkuriha Girls M.V. School, it must be held that the petitioner had not rendered any service and, on that count also the petitioner is not entitled to any salary, he submits. It is submitted by him that the judgement in Gunamoni Sarma (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. He submits that in the aforesaid case the Court had noted that the case of the respondents was not that the petitioner had been appointed illegally. He has submitted that, in the instant case, the specific case of the respondent No. 3 is that the appointment/regularization of the petitioner is illegal in view of the fact that she was appointed/regularized while a ban was in force and, that too, without resorting to any selection process. The further stand of Mr. He has submitted that, in the instant case, the specific case of the respondent No. 3 is that the appointment/regularization of the petitioner is illegal in view of the fact that she was appointed/regularized while a ban was in force and, that too, without resorting to any selection process. The further stand of Mr. Sarma is that the Gandhibari M.E. School was provincialised on 19.04.1991 and the Barkuriha Girls M.V. School was provincialised on 21.11.1975 and, therefore, the Managing Committee could not, even otherwise, have made any appointment. 11. Mr. U. Das, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has abided by the stand taken in the affidavit and the additional affidavit and has contended that the petitioner did not come and join in Barkuriha Girls M.V. School. 12. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 13. In the writ petition, it is pleaded that though the petitioner was earlier serving at Barkuriha Girls M.V. School, no formal appointment letter had been issued. The order dated 14.09.2000 speaks that the petitioner, who was working as Grade-IV at Gandhibari Girls M.E. School, on being appointed by the Managing Committee of the school, is regularized. On the own assertion of the petitioner, the petitioner was not working in Gandhibari Girls M.E. School though the order dated 14.04.2000 recited that she was working there and, therefore, she was regularized. Thus, the contents of the letter dated 14.09.2000 is contrary to the averments made by the petitioner that she was working in Barkuriha Girls M.V. School. The petitioner had averred that in absence of any post in Barkuriha Girls M.V. School, her service was regularized in Gandhibari M.E. School. Though Mr. Sarma has submitted that in view of the provincialisation of both the schools in question the Managing Committee had no power to appoint, in absence of any document placed on record with regard to the date of provincialisation of both the schools in question, it will be hazardous for this Court to comment upon such contention. The ban order has also not been placed on record to demonstrate that the order dated 14.09.2000 was passed while a ban order of the Government on appointment was in force. It, however, appears that the petitioner did not undergo any selection process. 14. The ban order has also not been placed on record to demonstrate that the order dated 14.09.2000 was passed while a ban order of the Government on appointment was in force. It, however, appears that the petitioner did not undergo any selection process. 14. While the petitioner claims that she had joined Barkuriha Girls M.V. School pursuant to the order dated 02.05.2006, such contention is emphatically denied by the Headmaster of Barkuriha Girls M.V. School, i.e., respondent No. 5. The affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 also seems to suggest that the petitioner did not join in the school. Whether the petitioner had joined or not has, in the circumstances of the case, assumed a serious disputed question of fact. It appears that the Daily Attendance Register of teachers, annexed with the affidavit was not complete as the Daily Attendance Register of teachers annexed to the additional affidavit demonstrates. For every month, there are two sheets of Attendance Register, but in the affidavit, only the first page was annexed. The second page for the months of January, February, etc., as annexed in the additional affidavit, indicates that Udhav Das had also signed the Attendance Register along with 9 Assistant Teachers. 15. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in Gunamoni Sarma (supra) shows that in the said case the question as to whether the Managing Committee could appoint a Chowkidar after provincialization of the school was not an issue. It was also not the case of the respondents in the said writ petition that the petitioner was appointed illegally. It also appears that there was no issue with regard to appointment/regularization during a ban period. That apart, there was no controversy with regard to the petitioner discharging his duties and the only plea that was taken by the State respondents was that without retention of the post, the petitioner could not be paid salary. The facts of the said case are not akin to the facts of the instant case. 16. Considering the matter in its entirety, I have formed an opinion that it will be appropriate for the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders with regard to the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary. 17. 16. Considering the matter in its entirety, I have formed an opinion that it will be appropriate for the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders with regard to the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioner for entitlement of salary, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, to consider the matter in its entirety and pass appropriate orders with regard to the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be tenable, salary shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of determination. 18. No cost. ***Annexure-C to the said affidavit is a letter dated 21.12.2013 of the Headmaster of Barkuriha Girls M.V. School, which shows that the Headmaster was in the said school from 14.04.1999. It is stated in the said letter that the petitioner had not joined the school till that date and she also did not get any salary during his period as Headmaster since 14.04.1999.