ORDER : The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order/letter dated 3.12.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby claim of the petitioners for approval of their appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and grant of salary in aided school has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that respondent No.5 - is a society registered on 24.3.1954 in the name and style of Chirmiri Colliery Vidhayalaya Samiti, Chirmiri and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, hence the Act and Rules framed by the State are applicable to it. The petitioners were engaged as Teacher in January, 1996, however, the order of appointment was issued by respondent No.5 on 1.10.1996 vide Annexure P/3. Thereafter, the case of the petitioners was forwarded to the competent authorities for its approval i.e. Deputy Director, Education, Baikunthpur, Korea and after due examination, their appointment was approved. Since the petitioners were not being paid salary, they made representations to the in-charge Minister, however, no action was taken by the authorities on it. Hence the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. WP No.2646/2003 for direction to the respondents to consider and decide their representation and give all service benefits from the date of their confirmation on the post. The said petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.6.2008 (Annexure P/12) and subsequently, the petitioners’ representation was dismissed on 3.12.2010 holding that appointment of the petitioners was not confirmed and their appointment could not have been made on the post of Assistant Teacher. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 This the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the case of the petitioners including the dispatch register of year 1999 from office of Respondent No.4. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari and quash the impugned order/letter dated 03.12.2010 passed by Respondent No.2 (Dy. Director). 10.3 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ and direct the respondent No.1 to 4 to treat the petitioners as Assistant Teacher from their initial appointment and release all consequential benefits as admissible to other teachers of the Respondent No.5 institution along with arrears with interest @ 9%. Director). 10.3 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ and direct the respondent No.1 to 4 to treat the petitioners as Assistant Teacher from their initial appointment and release all consequential benefits as admissible to other teachers of the Respondent No.5 institution along with arrears with interest @ 9%. 10.4 Any other relief which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned passed by respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and without application of mind and contrary to the documents available on record. Before passing the impugned order, the respondent authorities ought to have considered that the petitioners have been working since January, 1996, though the appointment order was issued on 1.10.1996 and admittedly, the posts were vacant in the school of respondent No.5. There is no allegation of forged or fabricated appointment or that the petitioners were not having requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher. Their appointment order was issued by the competent authority. The respondents have also not considered the letter dated 14.5.1999 (Annexure P/5) issued by Deputy Director but recorded the statement of PS Rathia who had nothing to do with this matter because he is working as Principal whereas the appointment of the petitioners was approved by the Deputy Director (Education) and copies were forwarded to the higher authorities which is entered in the dispatch register and therefore, the letter dated 14.5.1999 cannot be doubted. He further argued that even as per amended provisions the petitioners are entitled for salary of Shikshakarmis. The respondents are taking contradictory stands as on the one hand, they are saying that the petitioners are working in non-aided institution of respondent No.5 and on the other hand, saying that the approval is bad whereas the claim of the petitioners has been rejected on some other ground. It shows the malafide intention of the respondent authorities against the petitioners. There are number of documents which substantiate that appointment of the petitioners was approved by the competent authority. Before deciding that the order dated 14.5.1999 is forged, no opportunity of hearing was afforded either to the petitioners or to respondent No.5. It shows the malafide intention of the respondent authorities against the petitioners. There are number of documents which substantiate that appointment of the petitioners was approved by the competent authority. Before deciding that the order dated 14.5.1999 is forged, no opportunity of hearing was afforded either to the petitioners or to respondent No.5. Though the respondents are granting salary to other teachers but are denying the same to the petitioners who are working against the sanctioned vacant post, which is discriminatory and arbitrary. For all these reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioners be granted the relief claimed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/State strongly opposes the contention of the petitioners and submits that the impugned order dated 3.12.2010 was issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur to the District Education Officer, Baikunthpur by which the appointment of the petitioners was found illegal as per Recruitment Rules, 1979 for government aided school and also as per amended rule dated 14th June, 1996. Therefore, it was held that the petitioners are not entitled for appointment and salary as per rules. The petitioners were posted as Assistant Teacher in Chirmiri Colliery Vidhayalaya Samiti, Chirmiri and there was a proposal for appointment of the petitioner by the Samiti which was rejected as the same was not in accordance with law. A departmental enquiry was conducted regarding granting appointment to the petitioners against one PS Rathia who was holding the post of Incharge District Education Officer, Korea and has clearly stated that he has not approved the appointment of the petitioners and not issued any order with respect to their appointment. The petitioners are working in non-aided schools and they tried to join the government aided school i.e. Chirmiri Colliery Vidhayalaya, Chirmiri in order to enjoy the benefit of the scheme of the government. This apart, the present petition is not maintainable as it has been filed on 30.1.2012 whereas the impugned order was passed on 3.12.2010 and no satisfactory explanation has been offered for this inordinate delay. Hence, the writ petition being without any substance and inordinately delayed, is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Hence, the writ petition being without any substance and inordinately delayed, is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Lower Division Teacher (LDT) vide order dated 1.10.1996 in the primary school and by the impugned order dated 3.12.2010 (Annexure P/1), their representation for approval of their appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and grant of salary has been rejected. 7. The petitioner has filed note-sheet of Dy. Director, Education, Baikunthpur, Korea, as Annexure P/4, which reads as under: ^^dk;kZy; mi lapkyd ^^f'k{kk** cSdqUBiqj dk;kZfy;hu uksV 'khV%& fpjfejh dkWyjh fo|ky;] fpjfejh esa inLFk f'k{kdksa ds fu;qfDr fo"k;d i= izkIr gqvk gSA mDr laLFkk esa 3 lgk;d ^^f'k{kdksa ds in fjDr gSaA izca/kd }kjk tuojh 96 ls nks lgk;d f'k{kd mDr fjDr inksa ds fo:) fu;qfDr fd, x;s FksA laLFkk vuqnku izkIr gS ,lh fLFkfr esa izca/kd }kjk dh xbZ fu;qfDr vuqeksnuksijkUr gh vuqnku gsrq ekU; dh tk ldrh gSA izca/kd }kjk fu;qfDr lgk;d f'k{kd fuEukuqlkj gS %& 1- Jh fQjkst [kku vkRet Jh bdcky [kku gqlSu 2- Jherh js[kk iVsy ifr Jh fot; iVsy] mijksDr fu;qfDr vuqeksnu gsrq lknj izLrqr gSA mi&lapkyd ^^f'k{kk** cSdqUBiqj ftyk& dksfj;k** The Deputy Director, Education, Baikunthpur, vide letter dated 14.5.1999 granted approval to the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teacher. However, when the petitioners demanded their salary, the respondent authorities enquired about their appointment and as per letter dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P/15) the District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea informed the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur that appointment of the petitioners is illegal and they are not entitled for appointment and salary. However, when the petitioners demanded their salary, the respondent authorities enquired about their appointment and as per letter dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P/15) the District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea informed the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur that appointment of the petitioners is illegal and they are not entitled for appointment and salary. For ready reference, Annexure P/15 is being reproduced hereunder: ^^dk;kZy; ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] cSdqUBiqj ftyk& dksfj;k ¼NRrhlxढ+½ Kki Øekad@3447@vuqnku@fu;qfDr@2010 cSdqUBiqj] fnukWd 22@11@2010 izfr] lapkyd] yksd f'k{k.k lapkyuky;] NRrhlxढ+] jk;iqj fo"k; %& Jherh js[kk iVsy ,oa Jh fQjkst [kku dh fu;qfDr ,oa osru ds laca/k esaA lanHkZ& 1- Hkonh; dk;kZy; dk i= Øekad@vuqnku@fu;qfDr@10@458 fn0 29-09-2010- 2- Hkonh; dk;kZy; dk i= Øzekad@vuqnku@fu;qfDr@10@511 fn0 13-10-2010- mijksDr lanHkkZafdr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd Jherh js[kk iVsy ,oa Jh fQjkst [kku dh fu;qfDr ,oa osru ds laca/k esa vkids }kjk izdj.k dh oLrq fLFkfr ,oa rF;kRed fLFkfr Li"V djrs gq, vfHker lfgr Hkstus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS] ftlds laca/k esa tkudkjh fuEukuqlkj izLrqr gS %& 1@& ;g fd e/; izns'k jkti= fnukad 14 twu 1996 dh dafMdk ¼1&d½ ,slh laLFkk esa ftls 'kkldh; vuqnku izkIr gks jgk gS] lgk;d f'k{kd ds in ds fy, 14 twu i'pkr~ lh/kh HkrhZ ugha dh tk;sxhA bu laLFkkvksa esa izoxksZ dh fu/kkZfjr njksa vuqlkj ekuns; fn;k tkosxkA fdUrq mDr jkti= esa fn;s x;s vkns'kkuqlkj budh fu;qfDr dk vuqeksnu fnuk¡d 14-05-1999 dks lgk;d f'k{kd in gsrq djk;k tkuk voS/kkfud gSA 2@& dk;kZy; dfe'uj fcykliqj laHkkx fcykliqj }kjk foHkkxh; tkWp izdj.k Øekad@10340@l-v-lkekU;@2002 'kklu fo:) Jh ih0,l0jkfB;k izkpk;Z ds vkns'k fnukWd 7-11-2002 esa Jh jkfB;k }kjk Kkiu Øzekad 725@tkWp@2002@fnukWd 17-05-2002 }kjk izLrqr dj vius dkj.k crkvks lwpuk ds mRrj esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd mUgksaus Jherh js[kk iVsy ,oa Jh fQjkst [kku dks lgk;d f'k{kd ds in ij fpjfejh dkyjh fo|ky; fpjfejh esa fu;qfDr gsrq dksbZ vkns'k ;k vuqeksnu ugha fd;k] mDr nksuksa f'k{kd iwoZ ls gh fpjfejh dkyjh fo|ky; lfefr }kjk lapkfyr xSj vuqnku izkIr laLFkk esa lgk;d f'k{kd ds in ij dk;Zjr FksA budks lfefr }kjk vuqnku izkIr laLFkk izkFkfed 'kkyk fpjfejh esa fu;qfDr gsrq izLrkfor fd;k x;k FkkA fu;ekuqlkj u gksus ds dkj.k izLrko vekU; dj ykSVk fn;k x;kA mlds i'pkr~ dk;Zdkfj.kh }kjk la;qDr lapkyd] yksd f'k{k.k ljxqtk laHkkx ds ikl iz;kl fd;k x;kA Jh jkfB;k }kjk izLrqr vius mRrj esa vkns'k Øzekad 1019@1020 esa viuk gLrk{kj ugha gksuk rFkk mDr vkns'k esa fdlh vkSj ds gLrk{kj cuk;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k gSA 3@& ;g fd Jherh js[kk iVsy ,oa Jh fQjkst [kku dh fu;qfDr dks voS/kkfud ekurs gq, iwoZ ds mi lapkyd ^^f'k{kk**@ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk osru Hkqxrku dh dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ gSA vr% mijksDr oLrq fLFkfr;ksa ,oa rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, rFkk Jherh js[kk iVsy ,oa Jh fQjkst [kku dh fu;qfDr dks voS/kkfud ekurs gq, bUgsa fu;qfDr ,oa osru dh ik=rk ugha gSA layXu %& mijksDrkuqlkjA ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh cSdqUBiqj] ftyk& dksfj;k** On the basis of above, the impugned order/letter dated 3.12.2010 (Annexure P/1) was issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur. 8. Respondent No.5-Managing Committee, Chirmiri Colliery Vidhayalaya, has not filed any return despite affording opportunity for the same vide orders dated 07.09.2021 and 07.10.2021 of this Court. However, it is clear from the documents on record that the petitioners were working since 1996 as Assistant Teacher and after a considerable period of about 15 years, they were denied salary on the ground that their appointment was illegal. Though the document of Annexure P/15 shows that Mr. Rathia, Principal, has denied his signature on the appointment order of the petitioners but there is nothing on record to show whether any enquiry was initiated in this regard to ascertain as to who issued such appointment order in favour of the petitioners. It is not the case that the petitioners secured this appointment by playing any fraud or misrepresentation of fact. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the impugned order/letter dated 3.12.2010 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter of appointment of the petitioners. If the petitioners are found working in the school as Teacher, their salary for the said period be released as per rules and if the petitioners are found eligible, they be treated as Assistant Teacher from the date of their initial appointment and granted all consequential benefits. All this exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The writ petition thus stands allowed to the above extent.