JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This intra-court appeal, preferred by 9 (nine) persons, is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.8.2014 passed in WP (C) 6071/2010, whereby challenge made to their termination orders as Assistant Teachers was negated. 2. Relevant facts are that the appellants had responded to an Advertisement/Employment Notice dated 27.12.1996, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teachers in M.V. Schools under the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam. The appellants, all hailing from the district of Lakhimpur, appeared for selection before the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board of Dhakuakhana and four years later i.e. on 5.3.2001 the selection list was prepared, containing 81 names, which was forwarded for government approval. The appellants were appointed vide orders dated 12.3.2001 and 17.3.2001 respectively, issued under the hand of the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Lakhimpur at different M.V. Schools in Dhakuakhana Sub-Division of Lakhimpur district. The first setback to their appointments came in the garb of the order dated 30.5.2001 of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (DEE) declaring the appointments as illegal with direction to the district authorities to cancel all such appointments. Ground assigned was that some appointments had been made during the second-half of the month of March 2001 just prior to issuance of the Notification for the General Assembly Elections in the State of Assam, with joining process continuing when the Model Code of Conduct of the Election Commission was in force. This order was put to challenge in 3 (three) writ petitions i.e. WP (C) 4433/2001, WP (C) 4280/2001 and WP (C) 4712/2001 (the third one by the appellants herein). Interim order dated 29.6.20012 passed in WP (C) 4712/2001 allowed the respondents to enquire into the alleged illegal appointments and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, with further direction that the services of the appellants should not be disturbed without the leave of the Court or until the interim matter was heard and disposed of. The respondents were also directed to release the salaries for the period the appellants had put in service. Despite the interim order, the DEEO issued order dated 14.8.2001 cancelling the appointments which, however, was kept in abeyance by the subsequent order of the DEE, Assam dated 7.12.2001. The aforesaid three petitions, along with the connected miscellaneous cases, stood disposed of on 12.11.2003. Despite the interim order, the DEEO issued order dated 14.8.2001 cancelling the appointments which, however, was kept in abeyance by the subsequent order of the DEE, Assam dated 7.12.2001. The aforesaid three petitions, along with the connected miscellaneous cases, stood disposed of on 12.11.2003. This Court had noticed that in pursuance of the interim order dated 29.6.2001 an enquiry was made by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department showing that the appellants were appointed during the period when the ban on appointment imposed by the State Government was operating and also without obtaining clearance of the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC). The stand of the appellants was also noticed, in that, they were appointed after a due process of selection by the competent authority and, having already served for about three years, cannot be penalized for any lapse on the part of the appointing authority for having issued appointment orders during the ban period and without obtaining clearance from SLEC. The Court was of the view that the State Government has the power to regularise the appointment though made during the ban period. Further, as they were duly selected by the competent authority and were appointed against available sanctioned vacancies, it is proper to refer the matter to the State Government for consideration and necessary order. Accordingly, direction was made to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, to place the matter before the SLEC for examination and for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, keeping in mind the hardship that will ensue if the appellants are thrown out of service. The required exercise was directed to be completed within 3 (three) months and, until then, to allow the appellants to continue in service. Non-compliance of the aforesaid Court’s order dated 12.11.2003 prompted filing of contempt case. The respondents released the salaries of 67 from the total 81 appointees, leaving out the appellants and few others from the salary benefit on ground that their appointments had been made against non-existent posts and declared excess, though selection was made in accordance with law. The left out 14 appointees, including the appellants, preferred WP (C) 8720/2003; WP (C) 8726/2003; WP (C) 8727/2003; WP (C) 8728/2003 and WP (C) 8729/2003. By common order dated 30.11.2004, the writ petitions were disposed of by noticing earlier orders of the Court for causing enquiry. The left out 14 appointees, including the appellants, preferred WP (C) 8720/2003; WP (C) 8726/2003; WP (C) 8727/2003; WP (C) 8728/2003 and WP (C) 8729/2003. By common order dated 30.11.2004, the writ petitions were disposed of by noticing earlier orders of the Court for causing enquiry. The respondents were again allowed to make enquiry with the observation that if upon enquiry it is found that the writ petitioners therein were illegally appointed, the respondents may proceed in the matter in accordance with law, and if appointed pursuant to regular process of selection, necessary formalities towards regularisation/adjustment of their services and payment of salary be carried out. The entire exercise was directed to be carried out within 4 (four) months from the date of furnishing the certified copy of the order etc. 3. From the materials now placed by the appellants through the Additional Affidavit dated 6.12.2016 [not made available in the related writ proceeding i.e. WP (C) 6071/2010] as well as the office records produced in original, an enquiry had already been made by the DEEO, Lakhimpur, and to that effect a letter dated 21.7.2003 was addressed to DEE, Assam, stating, inter-alia, that as per office record Sri Depak Gogoi and nine others (appellants included) were appointed in March 2001 upon selection by the Sub-Divisional Selection Board, Dhakuakhana but on examination of records and the vacancy position at that time it was found that the 10 (ten) nos. of teachers had been appointed without vacant post, which was found excess. In this connection explanation was made that the dealing Assistant, one Md. Mudasir Ahmed, who retired in January 2002, wrongly submitted the vacancy position before the appointing authority and the authority also appointed them over-looking the fact. Further, that these appointees were serving since the date of appointment and therefore, their salaries be released after adjustment against vacant posts, if possible. The office records also contains the steps taken pursuant to aforementioned Court’s order dated 30.11.2004, in the form of the Note Sheet dated 29.1.2005 of the Education Department (Legal Cell Branch). In the said Note, the appellants’ case is laid out, also referring to the aforesaid letter of the DEEO, Lakhimpur dated 21.7.2003. The office records also contains the steps taken pursuant to aforementioned Court’s order dated 30.11.2004, in the form of the Note Sheet dated 29.1.2005 of the Education Department (Legal Cell Branch). In the said Note, the appellants’ case is laid out, also referring to the aforesaid letter of the DEEO, Lakhimpur dated 21.7.2003. The Note ended with the observation that in order to comply with the judgment of the Court, the ‘LR’ (Legal Remembrancer) may first be moved for a judicious view, after taking approval of the Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department. The view of the Judicial Department was rendered on 16.3.2005 and having regard to the report of the DEEO, Lakhimpur, it was opined that it appeared that appointments were made as per regular process of selection. It was suggested that the Government should carry out the necessary formalities towards their regularisation/adjustment and to release their salary as per the direction of the Court. On 4.5.2005, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, issued direction to the DEE, Assam, to comply with the Court’s order dated 30.11.2004 with prospective effect, provided that petitioners in the bunch of writ petitions were working regularly. The said direction was made upon the aforesaid approval of the Judicial Department dated 16.3.2005. Consequent thereto, two orders were passed by the DEE, Assam - (i) order dated 16.6.2005, adjusting the appellant no. 1 against a vacant post and (ii) order dated 17.6.2005, adjusting the services of the remaining appellants against vacant posts, as shown in the respective orders. 4. Reference can be had to another common order dated 20.12.2006 passed in WP (C) 4109/2006 along with WP (C) 3778/2004, pertaining to objection raised by the Govt. Treasury to the pay bills of the appellants. This Court took due notice of the adjustment orders dated 16.6.2005 and 17.6.2005 and also the stand of the DEE, Assam of the proposal submitted to the Finance Department for release of salaries to the appellants. Accordingly, direction was made to the State respondents, including the Finance Department, to consider release of salary from the respective dates of adjustment of service within 30th March, 2007. Accordingly, direction was made to the State respondents, including the Finance Department, to consider release of salary from the respective dates of adjustment of service within 30th March, 2007. Non-compliance of the direction led to filing of two contempt cases i.e. COP (C) 180/2007 and 181/2007 which, however, were closed on 19.11.2008 as the Court was of the view that the process initiated pursuant to Court’s order dated 20.12.2006 was going on and a final decision was yet to be reached by the respondents. Liberty was granted to the appellants to approach the Court once again in the event the matter was not brought to a logical conclusion within a reasonable time. 5. Nothing transpired. Rather, on 22.2.2010 a letter was issued by the Education (Elementary) Department to the DEE, Assam, informing that since the petitioners in the two contempt cases were appointed without approval of SLEC and without any valid sanctioned posts, their services are to be terminated as per laid down procedure. Request was made for payment of salaries for the period they worked only. This letter/ communication dated 22.2.2010 was put to test by the appellants in WP(C) 1777/2010, which stood disposed of on 5.4.2010, with the following observation and direction: “............Before passing any adverse order affecting the service career of the petitioner, the authority would be required to follow the procedure as laid down under the law. From perusal of the order it shows that the authority passed the adverse order without following due procedure of law. The State respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case may take necessary action against the employee including the termination etc. but before doing so the authority must do so in accordance with law. Accordingly, in the event of deciding to terminate the service of the petitioner, that must be done by allowing them to file reply to the show cause within specified period and without considering their cases, as may be stated in the reply to the show cause, no adverse action would be taken..........” 6. It was, however, not brought to the notice of the Court by either parties of two events that had taken place prior to the passing of the aforesaid Court’s order dated 5.4.2010. It was, however, not brought to the notice of the Court by either parties of two events that had taken place prior to the passing of the aforesaid Court’s order dated 5.4.2010. First, Show Cause Notice dated 9.3.2010 had been issued to the appellants to explain why their appointments should not be treated as illegal and void ab-initio, as (i) being appointed against non-existent post, (ii) adjusted in service without approval of the higher authorities, (iii) not being selected by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board of Lakhimpur district, (iv) appointment being made in violation of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977, in that, there was no selection by the Selection Committee, and (v) appointment being made without approval of SLEC. Second, reply to the Show- Cause Notice had been made on 30.3.2010 detailing all facts. 7. Records disclose that the DEE, Assam, vide Memo No. EHA-384/2006/288-A, dated 22.4.2010 had ordered an enquiry into the appointment of the 10 (ten) teachers (which involves the appellants herein), whereupon an enquiry was conducted by affording opportunity of hearing to the said teachers. The said enquiry was made by one Esther Kathar, ACS, in the Directorate of Elementary Education, Kahilipara, Guwahati, with one Sri Anil Ch. Mandal as the Presenting Officer and the Registrar of the Directorate. The Enquiry Report dated 7.9.2010, being one of the most essential and important document related to this case, the same is reproduced herein: “ENQUIRY REPORT IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT OF 10 (TEN) TEACHERS UNDER THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER, NORTH LAKHIMPUR Pursuant to the order of the DEE, Assam vide Memo No. EHA-384/2006/288-A, dated 22.4.2010 and enquiry has been conducted into the appointment of 10(ten) teachers under the District Elementary Education Officer, North Lakhimpur. An opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the teachers to put forward their claims for release of salary and continuation in their service in presence of Sri Anil Ch. Mandal, Presenting Officer and Registrar of this Directorate. The name of the 10 (ten) teachers are: 1. Smti. Jyoti Baruah. 2. Sri Jugananda Borgohain. 3. Sri Tulani Taid. 4. Sri Lohit Chamua. 5. Sri Tankeswar Gogoi. 6. Sri Rajen Dutta. 7. Sri Dipak Gogoi. 8. Sri Durna Kt. Saikia. 9. Sri Dandeswar Pachani. 10. Sri Thaneswar Doley. Mandal, Presenting Officer and Registrar of this Directorate. The name of the 10 (ten) teachers are: 1. Smti. Jyoti Baruah. 2. Sri Jugananda Borgohain. 3. Sri Tulani Taid. 4. Sri Lohit Chamua. 5. Sri Tankeswar Gogoi. 6. Sri Rajen Dutta. 7. Sri Dipak Gogoi. 8. Sri Durna Kt. Saikia. 9. Sri Dandeswar Pachani. 10. Sri Thaneswar Doley. Show cause notice were served on the above mentioned teachers on 09.03.10 asking why their appointment should not be treated as illegal and void-ab-initio as their appointments are found contrary to rules. Replies to the show cause were submitted on 30.03.2010 by all the 10 (ten) teachers. All of them claimed that they applied for the post of Assistant teacher against the advertisement published in 1996 and that they had been duly selected by the Sub- Divisional Level Advisory Board (SDLAB), Dhakuakhana. State during Hearing - They stated that after about 3 months of joining, all new appointees were terminated from the Directorate, but none had received any personal termination order. Challenging the termination order of the DEE, Assam, the teachers filed a case under WP (C) 4712/2001 in the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the termination order and their services were continued vide Govt. letter No. ELC/COP(C)- 354/2001/174/151-A dated 28-09-2002. On the basis of the Govt. letter, the DEE, Assam issued letter No. EHA-381/2001/245-A dated 16-11-2002 directing the District Elementary Education Officer, North Lakhimpur to release their salary. Subsequently the DEEO, North Lakhimpur issued pay release order but 14 (fourteen) teachers, 4 (four) of them filed a different court case and are now receiving salary. Therefore, the remaining 10 (ten) teachers filed cases in WP (C) 8720/03; WP (C) 8726/03; WP (C) 8727/03; WP (C) 8728/03 and WP (C) 8729/03. The Hon’ble High Court passed common order dated 30.11.2004 directing the respondents to cause an enquiry. The Govt. after due enquiry referred the matter to the Judicial Department for views. On 16.03.05, the Judicial Department extended view to carry out necessary formalities for adjustment/ regularization of the petitioners. The Govt. thereafter directed the DEE, Assam to comply with the order of the Hon’ble high Court regarding regularisation with prospective effect provided they are working regularly. In pursuance, the DEE, Assam issued order of adjustment in respect of 9 (nine) petitioners on 17.06.2005 and adjustment order of Smt. Jyoti Baruah on 16.06.2005. The Govt. thereafter directed the DEE, Assam to comply with the order of the Hon’ble high Court regarding regularisation with prospective effect provided they are working regularly. In pursuance, the DEE, Assam issued order of adjustment in respect of 9 (nine) petitioners on 17.06.2005 and adjustment order of Smt. Jyoti Baruah on 16.06.2005. As per the adjustment order, necessary pay bills were prepared and submitted to the Treasury but the Treasury officer raised objection on the ground of non-availability of financial appraisal No. and returned the bill. The petitioners stated that at the time of their adjustment the approval of Finance (SIU) Department was not required, as it came into force only on 04.07.2005, but the approval of State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) was required. Further, they stated that 4 (four) similarly situated teachers (Petitioners of WP (C) 8577/2003) who were adjusted at a later date on 21.10.2005 are now receiving regular salary having obtained concurrence of Finance (SIU) Department. On examination of records, it is seen that as per report of the District Elementary Education Officer, North Lakhimpur dated 21.09.2003 the petitioners were selected by the Sub- Divisional Level Advisory Board (SDLAB), Dhakuakhana, but they were appointed against non-existent posts. The District Elementary Education Officer has further reported that the then Dealing Assistant Md. Mudasir Ahmed (Retired in Jan/02) had wrongly submitted vacancy position before the appointing authority. In pursuance of the Govt. letter No. ELC/WP (C) No. 8726/2003/932/84 dated 04.05.2005, the services of these teachers have been adjusted against vacant posts vide the order of the DEE, Assam No. EHA-381/2001/424 dated 17.06.2005, issued with the approval of Judicial Department vide their U/O No. 321/2005 dated 16.03.2005. FINDINGS: 1. It appears that the 10 (ten) teachers have been duly selected by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board (SDLAB), Dhakuakhana on 05.03.2001 as reflected from their appointment orders and report of the District Elementary Education Officer, North Lakhimpur. 2. Although duly selected these teachers had been appointed initially against non-existent posts. 3. Till June/2005, approval of State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) was required for appointment/adjustment. After 04.07.2005, the requisite approval of State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) was replaced by the concurrence of Finance (SIU) Department. But the adjustment orders of the petitioners were issued without the approval of the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) on 17.06.2005. 3. Till June/2005, approval of State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) was required for appointment/adjustment. After 04.07.2005, the requisite approval of State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) was replaced by the concurrence of Finance (SIU) Department. But the adjustment orders of the petitioners were issued without the approval of the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) on 17.06.2005. At the time of submission of their pay bills in the Treasury, Finance (SIU) approval was required which was not available, hence the Treasury Officer had not honoured their pay bills. 4. As per reports received from the District Office, the 10 (ten) petitioners have rendered their services continuously from the date of their adjustment in service. CONCLUSION: Since the 10 (ten) teachers appear to have rendered continuous service from the date of adjustment, perhaps their salaries may be paid for the period they have worked and the District Elementary Education Officer, North Lakhimpur may be asked to submit proposal for arrear salary in their favour. Secondly, even though the approval of State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) was not obtained at the time of their adjustment, perhaps considering the fact that they had been duly selected by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board (SDLAB) concerned, an effort may be made to request the Govt. to re-consider their continuance in the school as the services of similarly situated teachers like these 10 (ten) teachers have been regularized and they are drawing regular salaries. Submitted for favour of information and necessary action. Dated: 07.09.2010 Sd/- (Esther Kathar, ACS), Enquiry Officer & OSD, Directorate of Ele. Edu, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19.” 8. The findings and conclusions derived by the Enquiry Officer clearly suggests that the appellants had been continuously rendering service from their respective dates of adjustment and, perhaps, on this account their salaries may be paid for the period they worked. Further, although at the time of adjustment the approval of the SLEC was not obtained, however, they had been selected by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board concerned. In this regard, the Enquiry Officer recommended that effort be made to request the Government to re-consider their continuance as the services of similarly situated teachers like the appellants had been regularized and were also drawing regular salaries. 9. There are no records to show that the recommendations made by the duly constituted Enquiry Officer had stood for any consideration. In this regard, the Enquiry Officer recommended that effort be made to request the Government to re-consider their continuance as the services of similarly situated teachers like the appellants had been regularized and were also drawing regular salaries. 9. There are no records to show that the recommendations made by the duly constituted Enquiry Officer had stood for any consideration. Instead, the order dated 2.11.2010 came to be issued by the DEE, Assam, terminating the services of the appellants with immediate effect on grounds of the appointments being made without approval of SLEC and without any valid sanctioned posts. It was further ordered that the terminated teachers would only receive salaries for the period they worked. This impugned order dated 2.11.2010 gave rise to WP (C) 6071/2010 and the judgment and order passed thereon, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 10. As alluded to above, in the judgment under appeal dated 7.8.2014 there are apparently no reference to the various documents and Report of the Enquiry Officer dated 7.9.2010, as the same were brought on record for the first time by means of the Additional Affidavit dated 6.12.2016 in the present appeal. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the then available records, dismissed the writ petition on the following findings and directions : “.........11. I have heard Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. I have also considered the entire materials on record including the records/documents produced by both the parties. During the course of hearing, Mr. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the purported select list (photocopy) about which there is mention in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. On perusal of the photocopy of the select list, certain names are found from S. No. 1 to 65. Thereafter another list is enclosed along with the said list containing the names of 17 persons. This is referred to as a composite select list. It appears that under the head Sub-division Dhakuakhana is mentioned. However, it is not discernible as to who were the members of the Selection Committee, in absence of any indication thereof. Only one signature, that too, not legible is discernible in each one of the select list and in the last page there is one signature with date 05.03.2001. It appears that under the head Sub-division Dhakuakhana is mentioned. However, it is not discernible as to who were the members of the Selection Committee, in absence of any indication thereof. Only one signature, that too, not legible is discernible in each one of the select list and in the last page there is one signature with date 05.03.2001. If this is the select list, when certainly, the same was prepared during the operation of ban period. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the same was approved by the competent authority. 12. In the writ petition, the petitioners have not indicated as when the selection was held and as to whether they had been invited to appear in the interview through any call letters or not. No date of interview has been indicated. Only statement made is that the advertisement was issued in 1996 and thereafter the select list was prepared in 2001. However, Mr. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the selection/interview was conducted in 1997. If that be so, it is not understood as to why it took long four years to prepare the select list. 13. Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has produced the copy of the judgment dated 22.11.2012 of the Division Bench passed in WA No. 55/2012 in which under similar circumstances, the dispensation of services of such appointees has been upheld. That was also a case relating to appointment of teachers in 2001. However, subsequently their services were dispensed with on the ground of having been appointed illegally without any valid selection process. In para 7 of the judgment, it has been observed thus:- “(7) Public employments whose expenses are met from the public exchequer must not only conform to the recruitment rules or the rules holding the field but also to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which abhor any element of malpractice or fraud. The Courts cannot countenance any serious allegations of malpractice or fraud practiced during the recruitment process, which are anathema to the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which deprive fair and equal opportunity to the eligible and meritorious candidates. The Courts cannot countenance any serious allegations of malpractice or fraud practiced during the recruitment process, which are anathema to the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which deprive fair and equal opportunity to the eligible and meritorious candidates. In view of the above disputed facts relating to existence of vacancies and serious allegations of malpractice said to have been committed by the authorities in the matter of appointment of 252 candidates, this Court is of the view that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge on 07.06.2007 does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed.” 14. As in the instant case, the case was also in respect of appointment made during the ban period. However, the selection Board inspite of the ban on appointment to regular vacancies had prepared the select list of 215 candidates in Lower Primary School against regular vacancies in anticipation that the Government would lift the ban very soon. There is no dispute that there was ban on appointment during the relevant period and that no approval of the SLEC was obtained before making the purported selection and appointment. Coupled with this and as indicated in the individual show cause notices, the services of some of the teachers had been adjusted without approval of the higher authority and the appointments were made do hors the Recruitment Rules. The grounds on which the show cause notices had been issued have been indicated above. 15. In the appointment orders annexed to the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, which are dated 12.03.2001 and 17.03.2001, although the purported select list is referred to, but in some of the appointment orders, no date of the same is indicate. The individual names of the petitioners are only indicated in the appointment orders without their address etc. There is also no indication about their selection by the Sub-divisional Level Advisory Board, although there is reference to the undated select list of the Advisory Board. 16. As regards the plea of the petitioners for regularization of their services in reference to some others, suffice is to say that the petitioners will have to plead their own case on their own materials and merits and cannot rely upon the case of others towards converting the legal/irregular appointment to that of regular appointment. 16. As regards the plea of the petitioners for regularization of their services in reference to some others, suffice is to say that the petitioners will have to plead their own case on their own materials and merits and cannot rely upon the case of others towards converting the legal/irregular appointment to that of regular appointment. Needless to say that one illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by another illegality and if that is allowed, the same will amount to negative equality. 17. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners will be entitled to receive their salary for the period they had rendered their services and as indicated in the impugned orders and also in the counter affidavit. As regards the other such appointees, it will always be open for the respondents to take action against them, if so advised and in accordance with law.” 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record, including the office records produced by the department. Foremost to bear in mind, the Select List dated 5.3.2001, prepared pursuant to Employment Notice dated 27.12.1996, contained 81 names. As on date all the selectees, barring 10 selectees, which includes the 9 (nine) appellants herein, have since been regularized in service and are also in receipt of regular salaries. A common selection process by the same Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board, Dhakuakhana, is interpreted to be beneficial to one substantial section and unfavourable to few i.e. the 9 (nine) appellants herein. In this connection we find that there is no dispute to the fact that appellants had been selected by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board, Dhakuakhana, which fact stood confirmed by the common order dated 12.11.203 passed in WP (C) 4433/2001, WP (C) 4280/2001 and WP (C) 4712/2001, as well as in the aforesaid Enquiry Report dated 7.9.2010. 12. Initially, objection of the state respondents was with regard to appointments having been made during March 2001 i.e. just prior to issuance of Notification for the General Assembly elections in the State. It was only during the proceedings in WP (C) 4433/2001, WP (C) 4280/2001 and WP (C) 4712/2001, and following the Court’s interim order dated 29.6.2001 whereby an enquiry was made by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. It was only during the proceedings in WP (C) 4433/2001, WP (C) 4280/2001 and WP (C) 4712/2001, and following the Court’s interim order dated 29.6.2001 whereby an enquiry was made by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, that another ground was brought in, in that, over and above the appointments being made during the ban period, such appointments had also been made without obtaining clearance of the SLEC. In this context the final common order passed by this Court on 12.11.2003 in the aforesaid three writ petitions assumes great significance. In the said common order a clear observation was made that the State Government has the power to regularize the appointments though made during the ban period with further clear findings that the appellants were duly selected by the competent authority and were appointed against available sanctioned vacancies. This finding has remained undisturbed, un-interdicted until this date by any forum. Therefore, the established fact having judicial sanction is that the appellants were not only selected by the competent authority, which is the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board concerned, but were also appointed against sanctioned vacancies. With regard to appointments being made during the ban period, this Court had also observed that the State Government is vested with the power to regularise the appointments. Having regard to the directions made in the said common order, there are, however, no records to demonstrate any action being taken by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, of having placed the matter before the SLEC for examination and for passing appropriate orders. 13. During the stage of the contempt proceedings in COP (C) 180/2007 and COP (C) 181/2007, the State respondents had withheld release of salaries to 14 (fourteen) out of the total 81 (eighty one) appointees, which had prompted all the 14 appointees to approach this Court in WP (C) 8720/2003; WP (C) 8726/2003; WP (C) 8727/2003; WP (C) 8728/2003 and WP (C) 8729/2003. On record, consequent upon institution of the writ petitions, 4 (four) out of the 14 (fourteen) appointees were paid salaries, to the exclusion of any of the appellants. 14. Discrimination is writ large, inasmuch as, a homogenous group is sought to be split on the lines over respective legitimate entitlement to continue in service and to be paid regular salary. On record, consequent upon institution of the writ petitions, 4 (four) out of the 14 (fourteen) appointees were paid salaries, to the exclusion of any of the appellants. 14. Discrimination is writ large, inasmuch as, a homogenous group is sought to be split on the lines over respective legitimate entitlement to continue in service and to be paid regular salary. A total of 71 (seventy one) appointees have been regularized/adjusted in service with regular salary, the rest 10 (ten) appointees, which includes the 9 appellants, are being denied equal benefit, although both group comes from the same stock. 15. The appellants were adjusted in service against vacant posts following the Court’s order dated 30.11.2004 passed in the aforesaid bunch of cases WP (C) 8720/2003 etc. and the communication dated 4.5.2005 of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, so issued with the approval of the Judicial Department dated 16.3.2005. The adjustment orders dated 16.6.2005 and 17.6.2005 made categorical mention of being adjusted against vacant posts. Coupled with this, even with regard to their initial appointments, this Court gave clear finding in the common order dated 12.11.2003 in WP (C) 4433/2001, WP (C) 4280/2001 and WP (C) 4712/2001 that the appellants had been duly selected by the competent authority and were appointed against available sanctioned posts. In the face of this stark factual position it is not understood as to what prompted the respondent authorities to issue Show-Cause Notices dated 9.3.2010 to the appellants citing grounds already settled and laid to rest by judicial pronouncement. The Show-Cause Notices dated 9.3.2010 had, inter-alia, harped on appointments being made against non-existent posts; without selection by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board and being made in violation of the rules. These grounds, in our considered opinion, tantamounts to sitting on appeal over the aforesaid common order dated 12.11.2003. Clearly, it is not permissible in law. 16. The Enquiry Report dated 7.9.2010, as reproduced above, provides the factual background of the appellants’ case with great clarity. A mere perusal of the facts narrated thereof demonstrates how abjectly the case of the appellants had been dealt with. Without doubt, no clearance had been obtained from SLEC, but again without doubt, the appellants had been selected by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board against sanctioned vacancies. A mere perusal of the facts narrated thereof demonstrates how abjectly the case of the appellants had been dealt with. Without doubt, no clearance had been obtained from SLEC, but again without doubt, the appellants had been selected by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board against sanctioned vacancies. The Report, therefore, made suggestion that an effort be made for re- consideration of their continuance in service as the services of similarly situated teachers have been regularised with grant of regular salary. Sadly, there is nothing on record to show that the case of the appellants had either been placed before the SLEC in pursuance of the aforementioned common order of the Court dated 12.11.2003 or the recommendation/ suggestion in the Enquiry Report dated 7.9.2010 had ever stood for consideration. Instead, the impugned termination order dated 2.11.2010 was issued, firstly on ground that appointments were found to be made without approval of SLEC, which is a view taken without first undertaking the exercise pursuant to the Court’s common order dated 12.11.2003 and that of the Enquiry Report and secondly on ground that appointments were made without any valid sanctioned posts, which ground is not open to the respondents in view of the clear findings of the Court in the common order dated 12.11.2003 as well as the adjustment orders dated 16.6.2005 and 17.6.2005. To reiterate, the appointments of the appellants having been made against vacant sanctioned posts is no more res-integra, for reasons stated above. 17. For all the discussions and findings above, we hold that the appellants were not given a fair deal and were taken out of service illegally. They have been discriminated against, moreso when peers directly from the same stock as the appellants have since been regularized/adjusted in their service with grant of regular pay. From the facts in its entirety, it is seen that the State respondents have not only acted unfairly but have also demonstrated lack of due application of mind in creating grounds for termination when there was none, particularly, having regard to the findings of the Court, as discussed above. We, accordingly, set aside the termination order dated 2.11.2010, issued by the DEE, Assam, as well as the judgment and order under appeal dated 7.8.2014 passed in WP (C) 6071/2010, save and except the order/direction for making payment of salaries to the appellants for the period they worked. We, accordingly, set aside the termination order dated 2.11.2010, issued by the DEE, Assam, as well as the judgment and order under appeal dated 7.8.2014 passed in WP (C) 6071/2010, save and except the order/direction for making payment of salaries to the appellants for the period they worked. We direct the State respondents to forthwith take back the appellants into their service as Assistant Teachers in their respective schools by passing necessary orders. We make no order for payment of back-wages as there are no pleadings that the appellants had not been gainfully employed since the period after termination from service. However, it is ordered that the period without duty shall not be considered as break-in- service and the said period shall count for the purpose of service benefits, including retirement benefits. 18. To the extent above, the present appeal stands allowed. No cost.