JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department. 2. By an order dated 19.05.1999 of the District Elementary Education Officer, the services of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 24.04.1998 as an Assistant Teacher in the Gerokanai M.E.M. Subsequently, by another order 15.12.1999, the regularization made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The order of 15.12.1999 inter alia provides that 52 numbers of teachers of Middle School were regularized by an order of 26.10.99 and as the regularization of the petitioner was also amongst the said 52 number of teachers, therefore, the order of regularization was withdrawn. In the year 2002, the petitioner preferred WP(C) 1853/2002 claiming for salary which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 20.08.2009 by providing that the claim of the petitioner would be covered by another judgment dated 31.03.2009 passed in WP(C) 2741/2008. In the said order dated 31.03.2009, a direction was issued that the arrear salary be released within a period of six months. It is stated that the said WP(C) 2741/2008 was preferred by 20 numbers of teachers who were amongst the 52 teachers whose regularization was withdrawn by the order dated 15.12.1999. When the salaries were not paid, a Contempt Case No.299/2011 was preferred. By an order dated 03.06.2011, the contempt case was closed based upon an order dated 21.05.2011 of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Elementary Education Department, wherein, a decision was taken for creating certain supernumery post for releasing the arrear salary. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred WP(C) 1005/2012 seeking a direction that the authorities allow him to continue in his post as his service was already regularized by the order dated 19.05.1999. 3. WP(C) 1005/2012 was dismissed by an order dated 01.09.2016 on the ground that the Commissioner & Secretary of the Department arrived at a finding that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of 52 number of teachers and therefore, he would not be covered by the proposal for creation of supernumerary post. On dismissal of 1005/2012 WA No.13/2017 was filed by the petitioner which was given a final consideration by the order dated 08.06.2017 giving the petitioner liberty to assail the order dated 21.05.2011 of the Commissioner & Secretary. 4. On dismissal of 1005/2012 WA No.13/2017 was filed by the petitioner which was given a final consideration by the order dated 08.06.2017 giving the petitioner liberty to assail the order dated 21.05.2011 of the Commissioner & Secretary. 4. In the aforesaid conclusion, the present writ petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 21.05.2011 of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Elementary Education Department. As already noted above, against the claim of the petitioner that he was regularized by an order dated 19.05.1999, the respondent authorities in the Elementary Education Department relies upon an order dated 15.12.1999 to contend that the order made in favour of the petitioner for his regularization was withdrawn. A perusal of the order dated 15.12.1999 in the paragraph-1 thereof shows that the authorities were of the view that 52 numbers of teachers of middle schools were regularized by an order dated 26.10.1999, thereafter in the second paragraph, it is stated that as such the regularization of the services of the petitioner amongst the aforesaid 52 teachers was withdrawn. The said provision in the second paragraph of the order dated 26.10.1999 is explicit and clear that the authorities while withdrawing his regularization was of the view that the petitioner is also amongst the 52 number of teachers. It being so, it cannot be concluded subsequently that the petitioner was not amongst the 52 number of teachers whose regularization was cancelled. 5. As a collorary, if we accept the contention that the order dated 15.12.1999 did not include the petitioner in such event, the only way it can be construed was that the order of regularization of the petitioner by the order dated 19.05.1999 was never withdrawn and it still remains in force. 6. Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department seeks to give an interpretation to the second paragraph of the order dated 15.12.1999 that instead of the expression that ‘among above 52 number of teachers’ it should be read as ‘over and above 52 number of teacher’. If that interpretation is to be accepted, the whole of the second paragraph of the order dated 15.12.1999 would remain incoherent to the extent that the said paragraph begins with the expression ‘as such’. If that interpretation is to be accepted, the whole of the second paragraph of the order dated 15.12.1999 would remain incoherent to the extent that the said paragraph begins with the expression ‘as such’. The expression as such gives an indication that the second paragraph is related to the first paragraph of the said order and it is not an independent provision of its own. The first paragraph merely states that 52 numbers of teachers of Middle School were regularized. If that is so, the provision that 52 number of teachers were regularized cannot be a reason for withdrawing the regularization of the petitioner who was regularized by the order dated 19.05.1999. 7. In view of such incoherency, the Court is inclined not to accept the said interpretation given by Mr. N. Sarma and read the order by taking into consideration the language and word used therein meaning thereby that the regularization of the petitioner was withdrawn because the petitioner was also amongst the 52 number of teachers who were earlier regularized. Given thus, we have arrived at a situation that if the petitioner was not amongst the 52 number of teachers, whose regularization were cancelled, his regularization remains intact till date. On the other hand, if it is construed that the regularization of the petitioner was withdrawn by the order dated 15.12.1999 in that event, the subsequent order of withdrawal of the cancellation of the regularization of the 52 numbers of teachers would also have to be made applicable also in the case of the petitioner. 8. It is stated that subsequently, the withdrawal of the regularization of the 52 number of teachers was cancelled by the authorities, meaning thereby, that if at all the respondents had withdrawn the regularization of the petitioner, the same subsequently stood cancelled. In other words, the regularization of the petitioner remains. 9. In the aforesaid background, the fact as indicated above when we examine the order dated 21.05.2011, we find that the Commissioner & Secretary had merely arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not amongst the 52 number of teachers whose services was also earlier withdrawn and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit like the 52 teachers. 10. In the aforesaid background, the fact as indicated above when we examine the order dated 21.05.2011, we find that the Commissioner & Secretary had merely arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not amongst the 52 number of teachers whose services was also earlier withdrawn and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit like the 52 teachers. 10. If that is the view of the Commissioner & Secretary, the other implication would be that if the petitioner was not amongst the 52 number of teachers then his services was never withdrawn by the authorities. 11. In view of the above, the Court is unable to accept the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner & Secretary in the order dated 21.05.2011 accordingly, the said order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner & Secretary to pass appropriate order as regards the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary. In doing so, the Commissioner & Secretary shall keep in mind the indication given above and take the same into consideration and pass a reasoned order thereto. The aforesaid be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.