JUDGMENT : Heard D.K. Sarmah, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 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 order dated 9.2.2007 (Annexure-H), whereby, direction was issued to stop salary for 193 teachers of L.P. Schools in Dhemaji District by treating it as a fraud case since, service of 355 illegally appointed teachers were terminated w.e.f. 18.5.1992 and yet 193 of them, were allowed to draw their salaries. The order also directed drawal of Departmental Proceeding against the errant officers who committed forgery and facilitated undeserved drawal of salary, by the terminated teachers. 3. The petitioner was appointed on 19.12.1989 (Annexure-A) as a teacher in the Jatar Kolia L.P. School and when her salary was stopped, she filed the Civil Rule 2114/1995. The Court directed consideration of the salary claim of the litigant and accordingly the Government, under the order dated 9.4.1999 (Annexure-B) issued direction to the D.I. of Schools, Dhemaji to release the salary of 12 teachers in Dhemaji sub-Division, to comply with the Court’s orders. Thereafter the D.I. of Schools, Dhemaji on 18.5.1999 (Annexure-C), had ordered release of the petitioner’s dues. 4. However the salary of the petitioner was stopped again and accordingly she filed the WP(C) No.8405/2004. The departmental lawyer produced the communication dated 21.2.2005 under the Reference No. ELC/WP(c)8405/2004/666/36 in the Court which reflected that the petitioner in the WP(C) No.8405 is working in a non-existent post since 19.12.1989 but her service was confirmed by then then D.I. of Schools, Dhemaji on 27.7.2000. It was projected that the Government is prepared to take appropriate action for addressing the grievance of the litigant and on that basis, this Court disposed of the WP(C) No.8405/2004 (Annexure-D) by its order dated 7.3.2005, without any observation on the merit of the claim. 5. After the above disposal order of the petitioner’s 2nd case by the High Court on 7.3.2005, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department issued direction on 20.5.2005 for release of the petitioner’s salary w.e.f. 1.1.2004 after adjusting her against a vacant post. But surprisingly, the Commissioner reflected that the salary release is in compliance with the High Court’s order dated 7.3.2005 in the WP(C) No.8405/2004, although no such direction on merit of the claim, was ever issued by the High Court. 6. But surprisingly, the Commissioner reflected that the salary release is in compliance with the High Court’s order dated 7.3.2005 in the WP(C) No.8405/2004, although no such direction on merit of the claim, was ever issued by the High Court. 6. The teachers who were appointed in 1989 against non-existent posts in L.P. Schools of Dhemaji District and who were not receiving their salaries were raising their grievances and accordingly the Government started a verification exercise on whether the services of the illegally appointed teachers were terminated, under the order dated 12.5.1992. Amongst the shortlisted teachers, the petitioner’s name was reflected at Sl. No.9 amongst the teachers of L.P. Schools in Dhemaji Urban Area with the projection that appointments were made against non-existent post but nevertheless, the teachers were paid their salaries. 7. When those large scale anomalies on unmerited drawal of salary by the illegal appointees (whose services were terminated) was noticed, the impugned direction was issued on 9.2.2007 (Annexure-H) to stop salary of the undeserving appointees. 8.1 Assailing the legality of the above order, the petitioner contends that she is entitled to receive salary as the termination order of 12.5.1992, was never served on her. 8.2 The learned Counsel Mr. D.K. Sarmah reads Dulu Devi vs. State of Assam reported in (2016)1 SCC 622 to project that the challenge in that case was also against the stop salary order dated 9.2.2007 and the Supreme Court after due consideration, had directed release of dues of the litigant Dulu Devi, who is in same footing, as the present petitioner. 9.1 On the other hand, Mr. N. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department submits that, large scale illegal appointment were made against non-existent posts in Dhemaji District and he refers to the two additional affidavits filed by the departmental Commissioner on 22.3.2011 and 1.4.2011 to project the connivance between the district officials and the appointees, to facilitate drawal of salary of those appointed against non-existent posts. 9.2 The respondents contend that the petitioner was appointed in a non-existent post but her service was undeservingly regularized by the then I/c D.I. of Schools, Dhemaji Jogen Bora. 9.2 The respondents contend that the petitioner was appointed in a non-existent post but her service was undeservingly regularized by the then I/c D.I. of Schools, Dhemaji Jogen Bora. Since the departmental officers had facilitated such illegal regularization , the CID PS Case No.02/08 was registered under Section 120B/420/406 of the IPC where the investigation revealed the role of Joge Bora in facilitating large scale illegal appointments in Dhemaji District between 1993-1995 and also regularization of the illegal appointees. Hence prosecution sanction was granted to punish the corrupt officer. 9.3 The departmental lawyer projects that enormous scale of illegality committed in Dhemaji district was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court and that may be the reason why in the case of Dulu Devi (Supra), direction for release of salary was ordered by the Court. 10. The above projection from the respondent side indicates that the petitioner was appointed on 19.12.1989 against non-existent post and her service was unauthorizedly regularized by the then D.I. of Schools, Jogen Bora. What is glaring here is that, in the WP(C) No.8405/2004, this Court never issued any direction on the merit of the claim but yet, release of salary for the litigant was directed by the Commissioner, by unnecessarily referring to the High Court’s order in the WP(C) No.8405/2004. 11. Since illegal appointments were made in huge numbers against non-existent post in Dhemaji district, the termination order was issued on 12.5.1992 but it is not clear whether the order of termination was actually served on the petitioner. Nevertheless, the departmental lawyer submits that process is going on to distinguish the genuine category from the illegal appointees and at the same time, action is being taken against the errant officials of the department. 12. The direction issued by the Supreme Court for the release of salary to Dulu Devi may normally apply to the petitioner. But in that case, the High Court at an earlier point of time, interfered with the termination of the teacher. Moreover reading of the judgment makes it clear that the Court was kept in the dark about the huge scale of illegal appointments made in Dhemaji district and also the action, both Civil and Criminal, against the errant officials of the department. Moreover reading of the judgment makes it clear that the Court was kept in the dark about the huge scale of illegal appointments made in Dhemaji district and also the action, both Civil and Criminal, against the errant officials of the department. Therefore, although this Court granted relief to a few illegal appointees in terms of Dulu Devi (supra), I am of the considered opinion that issuing direction in light of Dulu Devi (supra) without proper verification, may send a wrong signal since the petitioner was a beneficiary of an illegal process. Moreover, it was not a solitary case but involves huge number of illegal appointment and one cannot overlook the drain on public exchequer. 13. When the screening process is on and criminal and civil proceedings are continuing against the errant officials, my conscience does not permit me to issue direction for release of salary for the teacher whose service was ordered to be terminated, as far back as on 18.5.1992. But at the same time, if the screening process determines that the petitioner has rendered service all along, she may still claim salary, for the service rendered by her. 14. Therefore, after considering all the circumstances in the case, I direct the Commissioner & Secretary to the Department of Elementary Education to examine whether, the petitioner is entitled to receive her salary, notwithstanding the impugned order dated 9.2.2007 (Annexure-H). To facilitate the consideration, the petitioner may file a representation and the same should be considered on merit by the Commissioner, by taking into account all the relevant circumstances relating to appointment of teachers in L.P. Schools in Dhemaji district. It is ordered accordingly. 15. With the above direction, the case stands disposed of. No cost.