JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Abedin, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department. None appears for the respondent, Managing Committee of the Moinul Haque Choudhury Higher Secondary School. 2. As per the affidavit in opposition by the managing committee found on record, the petitioner who has the qualification of Masters Degree in Political Science was appointed as assistant teacher on honorary basis in the Moinul Haque Choudhury Higher Secondary School against the post of additional teacher of the additional section of class 8th and 10th. It is stated that the said post against which the petitioner was appointed was not a sanctioned post and secondly the petitioner was appointed by the managing committee of the concerned school although the school was provincilaised at the relevant point of time. 3. Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to a communication dated 18.01.1996 from the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Education Department addressed to the Director of Secondary Education, wherein an alternative procedure for appointment was prescribed. The consequence of such alternative procedure prescribed was that till the existence of the said communication the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules i.e., the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation of Service) Rules, 1982 was kept in abeyance or was deemed to have been not in force. The substituted procedure provided by the communication of 18.01.1996 was that the selection of the candidate for filling up the posts of assistant teachers would now be conducted by a selection committee mainly comprising of the managing committee of the school. 4. Accordingly, it is the submission of Mr. I.H. Saikia that the appointment of the petitioner was made by following the due procedure as was in force at the relevant point of time. It is also stated that the selection was made pursuant to an advertisement that was issued by following aforementioned substituted procedure. 5. But Mr. Abedin learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has brought to the notice of this court that in this writ petition the petitioner prays for payment of his salary and allowances from the date of initial appointment in the year 1996. 5. But Mr. Abedin learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has brought to the notice of this court that in this writ petition the petitioner prays for payment of his salary and allowances from the date of initial appointment in the year 1996. It is also brought to the notice of the court that the petitioner had preferred an earlier writ petition being WP (C) 5773/2000 for the same purpose which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 09.02.2004 requiring the petitioner to file a representation before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, in the Education Department. When the representation of the petitioner was rejected, the petitioner again approached this court by way of WP (C) 5184/2006, which was given its final consideration by the judgment and order dated 03.05.2011. 6. In the said judgment and order of 03.05.2011 this court provided and a concluded as such: 9. Assuming for the sake of analysis that the managing committees on the strength of Notification dated 18.01.1996 were empowered to make the appointment to posts in provincialised Higher Secondary Schools, the power so granted to the managing committee cannot be exercised, for making appointment when posts are not in existence. When managing committee is empowered to make appointment for a provincialised school, unless vacant posts are available, exercise of power of appointment by the managing committee has to be declared as without jurisdiction and without sanction of the Notification dated 18.01.1996 and accordingly, I see no enforceable right in favour of the petitioner to seek regularization of his service. 10. That apart, the petitioner seeks intervention of the Court by invoking "compassion" as the petitioner was made to serve on honorary basis without any remuneration and salary. But in a Court, "compassion" cannot get precedence over "Law", and accordingly, I am of the view that legality of the appointment of the petitioner can’t ignore the Law that was prevalent at the time when the petitioner was appointed by the managing committee of the school. In this context, Rule 9 of the 1982 Rules clearly provided that appointment to provincialised schools is to be make upon selection by District Level Section Board and therefore, the power conferred upon the managing committee through the Notification dated 18.01.1996, is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the 1982 Rules. 11. In this context, Rule 9 of the 1982 Rules clearly provided that appointment to provincialised schools is to be make upon selection by District Level Section Board and therefore, the power conferred upon the managing committee through the Notification dated 18.01.1996, is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the 1982 Rules. 11. Accordingly, it has to be declared that the norms of appointment prescribed by the Notification dated 18.01.1996 cannot overwrite the norms of recruitment prescribed by the 1982 Rules. Since the appointment of the petitioner was given by the managing committee, it has been rightly held in my opinion that such appointment has "no sanctity of Law". 12. On the claim made by the petitioner for his un-paid salary, it is reflected in the appointment order (Annexure-3) given to the petitioner that he was appointed as the second subject teacher in Political Science and the said appointment can have legal effect for salary only if the proposal for converting the unutilized post of subject teacher in Geography to a post in Political Science is accepted. Since the power of conversion does not vest on the managing committee, the appointee was very much on notice that he was being appointed in a non-existent post and even then, he opted to join and serve as the second subject teacher in Political Science with the hope that, once the unutilized post gets converted, he receive salary after regular appointment. But it is apparent that the unutilized post has not been converted by the Govt. and unless a regular post was available there cannot be any legitimate claim for payment of salary from the Government and the Public ex-chequer. 13. But since it was the managing committee which appointed the petitioner against a non-existent post, if any salary claim is to be entertained, the obligation to make such salary payment would lie on the appointing authority i.e., the managing committee and not against the Government and the Public ex-chequer. Accordingly, while rejecting the petitioners claim for salary from the Public ex-chequer, he is permitted to make a claim for salary payment from the concerned managing committee which gave him appointment to the non-existent post. 7. Accordingly, while rejecting the petitioners claim for salary from the Public ex-chequer, he is permitted to make a claim for salary payment from the concerned managing committee which gave him appointment to the non-existent post. 7. In paragraph 9, it was concluded that although the communication of 18.01.1996 empowers the managing committee to make the appointments, but it also has to be construed that such appointments are to be made against existing posts and as in the instant case, the petitioner was not appointed against any existing post, therefore, the appointment is without jurisdiction. In para 11, it was declared that the procedure prescribed by the communication of 18.01.1996 cannot override the recruitment procedure provided by the 1982 Rules. Finally, in paragraph 13 it was concluded and ordered that since the petitioner was appointed by the managing committee against a non-existing post, therefore the obligation to make payment of the salary would be on the managing committee and not against the Govt. and the public ex-chequer. It is stated that pursuant to the said order, the managing committee was approached by the petitioner but nothing further was done. 8. This Writ Petition is preferred for a direction to the managing committee to pay salary and allowances to the Petitioner. The managing committee has filed an affidavit in opposition dated 27.11.2013 wherein in paragraph 12, it had admitted the liability to pay the salary and allowances to the petitioner, but at the same time takes a stand that the petitioner through this Writ Petition cannot claim any liability on the school managing committee to pay the salary, which according to the managing committee is in the liability of the Respondent No. 2 & 3. 9. But such stand without being substantiated is unacceptable. Although in paragraph 14, the managing committee denies that they had not taken any step to mitigate the grievance of the petitioner and tries to shift the burden to the Respondent No. 3 & 4 but in paragraph 13 of the judgment and order dated 03.05.2011, this court had held that the claim for payment of salary is to be entertained by the managing committee and the obligation thereby for making such payment would also lie on the managing committee and not on the Govt. and the public ex-chequer. 10. and the public ex-chequer. 10. In view of such unacceptability of the stand of the managing committee, it is hereby directed that as required by the judgment and order dated 03.05.2011 in WP (C) 5483/2006, the managing committee of Moinul Haque Choudhury Higher Secondary School shall pass a reasoned order on the claim of the petitioner for salary and allowances without trying to shift the burden on the Govt. of Assam as well as the Director of Elementary Education Assam and act in a manner as provided in the said judgment and order of this court. The aforementioned exercise be carried out within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. In term of the above the writ petition stands disposed.