JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department. 2. The petitioner is a registered association espousing the causes of the irregular/illegally appointed teachers who were appointed during the period from 1991 to 2001, and also rendering their services in the respective schools continuously and without break. 3. Accordingly, the members of the petitioners association claims a legal right that they be regularized in their services. In respect of the issue as to whether the irregularly/illegally appointed teachers are to be regularized in their service, a Division Bench of this court had passed an order dated 02.03.2010 in WP (C) 1048/2014. The operative part of the order is as follows:- "To make the resolution that will now be attempted by the Court appointed committee effective and fruitful, we direct that in the event the appointment of any of the petitioner is found to be legal and valid, the same will carry an obligation on the part of the State Government to pay salary to such petitioners and in the event such appointments are found to be illegal, it will be open for the State to take appropriate action in accordance with law. We also make it clear that it will be open for the State to frame a policy, in accordance with law, for eventful accommodation of the 3281 Nos. of illegally appointed teachers who have been identified on filed verification to be working, if the State is so inclined." 4. The provision of the order of the Division Bench is that a committee had been constituted for the purpose of screening the claims of such teachers who seek for regularization. The Division Bench had provided that in the event the appointment of any teacher is found to be legal and valid, the same will carry an obligation on the part of the State Government to pay salary and in the event such appointments are found to be illegal, it will be open for the State Government to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The Division Bench further provided that it will be open for the State to frame a policy, in accordance with law for eventual accommodation of the illegally appointed teachers who upon verification would be identified to have been working. 5. The Division Bench further provided that it will be open for the State to frame a policy, in accordance with law for eventual accommodation of the illegally appointed teachers who upon verification would be identified to have been working. 5. In the aforesaid background the petitioners in this writ petition are aggrieved by the application form prescribed for the purpose, to the extent that the information sought for in Clauses 14, 16 and 17 are not justifiable and deprives the teachers from participating in the process for regularization. 6. A reading of Clauses 14, 16 and 17 indicate that Clause 14 pertains to the question as to whether the concerned teacher has undergone the junior basic training course or any other training, Clause 16 pertains to some earlier advertisement and Clause 17 pertains to the question as to whether service book and GPF accounts were opened. 7. The said three requirements of Clauses 14, 16 and 17, in view of this court are essential requirements to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the appointment was made in a legal and valid manner. But at the same time the purpose of the screening committee is not only to identify the legally appointed persons, but also to consider the cases of such illegally appointed persons inasmuch as, the Division Bench of this Court had kept it open for State respondents authorities to frame a police on the same. If any teacher is prevented from submitting the application form, such teachers although may be illegally appointed would be deprived from being taken into consideration in the event such policy is taken as indicated in the order of the Division Bench. 8. In such view of the matter it is deemed appropriate that the screening committee examines the cases of all such teachers who desires to subject themselves to such screening test. 9. In this respect the order dated 27.11.2012 of this court would also be relevant which as follows:- "As acceptance of the applications by itself doesn’t confer any right of regularization and is subjected to the screening exercise, as an interim measure, the applications from the interested applicants from Bongaigaon District should be accepted even though the applications maynt contain an adequate response for Clause 14, 16 and 17. However it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to subject all the applicants to screening on merit in accordance with the applicable norms and mere acceptance of an application willnt confer any right of regularization." 10. The said interim order had already provided that the application from the interested teachers should be accepted without insisting upon Clauses 14, 16 and 17. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of by reiterating the order of 27.11.2017 by requiring that the respondent authorities give a consideration to any such an application from any teacher who may also submit his application without providing the information under Clauses 14, 16 and 17 and consider the same in the manner provided in the Order of the Division Bench as indicated above. 11. In the event the members of the petitioner association had already submitted such application, they would not be required to submit any further application and the authorities would consider and inform the concerned teacher about the result of the consideration of his application. 12. It is also reiterated, as indicated in the order dated 27.11.2012 that acceptance of the application by itself does not confer any right of regularization and the final outcome would depend upon the result of the screening process which is being undertaken. It is further provided that as the screening test undertaken has already concluded or is about to conclude, such application be submitted by the members petitioner association within a period of one month from today and in the event it is not submitted within the period of one month, the respondent authorities need not consider the same. In terms of the above, writ petition stands disposed of.