JUDGMENT & ORDER : N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J. Heard Mr. Nayanjyoti Khataniar, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. A. U. Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. In view of the order passed by this Court today in IA(c)824/2025 [in Writ Appeal No. 824/2025(Filing Number)]; Registry has registered the instant writ appeal today itself. 3. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties;the matter is finally heard. 4. The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted by the appellants, herein, assailing the order, dated 07.02.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4572/2022. 5. The respondent No. 1, herein, had approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4572/2022, praying for a direction upon the appellants, herein, to grant ex-post facto approval to his appointment against the post of Chowkidar in Kacharigaon Senior Madrassa, Dhubri, and also for grant of Finance(S.I.U.) approval to his appointment and for the purpose of release of his arrears as well as his current salaries. 6. The father of the respondent No. 1, herein, late Jasim Uddin Khan, while working as a Chowkidar in Kacharigaon Senior Madrassa, Dhubri, was kidnapped by some miscreants on 19.03.2006. Unfortunately, the father of the respondent No. 1, herein, could not be recovered alive and his dead body was subsequently found. The respondent No. 1, after the demise of his father, applied before the respondent authorities for consideration of his case for appointment against the post of Chowkidar held by his deceased father in Kacharigaon Senior Madrassa, Dhubri. 7. The Managing Committee of Kacharigaon Senior Madrassa, Dhubri, vide resolution, dated 22.08.2006, proceeded to engage the respondent No. 1, herein, as a Chowkidar in the said Madrassa and an engagement letter, in this connection, was issued to the respondent No. 1, herein, on 22.08.2006. The respondent No. 1, accordingly, joined his service as a Chowkidar in Kacharigaon Senior Madrassa, Dhubri, in terms of the said engagement letter, dated 22.08.2006. 8. The appointment of the respondent No. 1, herein, not being regularized; he had approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4760/2007. The respondent No. 1, accordingly, joined his service as a Chowkidar in Kacharigaon Senior Madrassa, Dhubri, in terms of the said engagement letter, dated 22.08.2006. 8. The appointment of the respondent No. 1, herein, not being regularized; he had approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4760/2007. The said writ petition was disposed of by the writ Court vide order, dated 12.09.2007, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 in terms of the guidelines laid down by a single Bench of this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam & ors . [judgment & order, dated 03.08.2006, in WP(c)3875/2005]. The certified copy of the judgment & order, dated 03.08.2006, on being produced by the respondent No. 1, before the respondent authorities; the matter was processed and the Director of Madrassa Education, Assam, on 11.06.2013, proceeded to appoint the respondent No. 1, herein, as a Chowkidar(Grade-IV employee) in Kacharigaon Senior Madrassa, Dhubri. 9. In the order, dated 11.06.2013, issued by the Director of Madrassa Education, Assam, it was also stipulated that the post, in question, against which the respondent No. 1 was so appointed, had the approval of the Finance(S.I.U.) Department. The respondent No. 1, herein, accordingly, joined his service and has been discharging his duties, therein, till date. 10. The materials brought on record would go to reveal that for release of the salaries of respondent No. 1, herein, in pursuance of his appointment effected vide the order, dated 11.06.2013, communications were made between the appellants, herein, as well as with the Finance Department. However, on the plea that the validity of the Finance(S.I.U.) approval for the post, in question, having expired on 31.07.2008, the matter of disbursal of the salaries to the respondent No. 1, herein, was not taken forward. It is seen that the Director of Madrassa Education, Assam, vide communication, dated 11.12.2014, had requested the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department, to grant ex-post facto approval to the respondent No. 1, herein. 11. The salaries of the respondent No. 1, herein, not being released, he had approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4572/2022, praying for the reliefs as noticed hereinabove. 12. 11. The salaries of the respondent No. 1, herein, not being released, he had approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4572/2022, praying for the reliefs as noticed hereinabove. 12. The appellants, herein, had filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the said writ petition being WP(c)4572/2022 and had taken a stand to the effect that the appointment of the respondent No. 1, herein, on compassionate ground being so effected without following the principles in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra); the ex-post facto approval for such appointment cannot be granted and accordingly, the writ petition was prayed to be dismissed. 13. The learned Single Judge upon considering the matter and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition vide order, dated 07.02.2024, by directing the State Respondents to consider the case of the respondent No. 1, herein, for grant of ex-post facto approval to his appointment. The operative portion of the order, dated 07.02.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4572/2022, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ 14. Under such peculiar circumstances, this court, under the powers conferred on this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issue a Mandamus to the respondent department, namely, the respondent No.1, Commissioner and Secretary, Assam, Education (Secondary) department, to forward the relevant papers pertaining to the appointment and the service rendered by the petitioner to be placed before the Chief Secretary of the State. The Chief Secretary of the State, in his capacity, as the Chairperson of the SLC, will treat the order dated 11.06.2013 passed by the Director, Madrassa to the recommendation from the District Authority or the DLC and will thereafter pass necessary orders as required under the Office Memorandum prevalent at the relevant point in time for compassionate appointments. This specific order is passed by the court in view of the fact that the petitioner was permitted to work by the order passed by the Director of Madrassa dated 11.06.2013, and that order as on date has not been re-called or reviewed and the petitioner was made to work without payment of any salary. This specific order is passed by the court in view of the fact that the petitioner was permitted to work by the order passed by the Director of Madrassa dated 11.06.2013, and that order as on date has not been re-called or reviewed and the petitioner was made to work without payment of any salary. Upon the matter being placed before the Chief Secretary in his capacity as the Chairperson of the SLC, the SLC will pass necessary orders regularizing the approval of the petitioner as a compassionate appointment with effect from the date of the order being passed and the matter be forwarded to the Finance Department for grant of post- facto approval to the post in which the petitioner has been appointed. This order shall not be treated as a Precedent as this order is passed under peculiar facts and circumstances arising in this case before the Court. 15. This entire exercise be completed within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 14. Mr. Khataniar, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for the appellants, herein, assailing the order, dated 07.02.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4572/2022, has submitted that the initial appointment of the respondent No. 1, herein, against a Grade-IV post effected vide order, dated 11.06.2013, by the Director of Madrassa Education, Assam, being so effected in clear violation of to the procedure laid down in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra); the said appointment is ab initio void and the same cannot confer any right upon the respondent No. 1, herein, to continue against the said Grade-IV post of Chowkidar and further that he would not be entitled to claim his salaries in pursuance of such void appointment. 15. Mr. Khataniar, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, has submitted that the learned Single Judge although had noticed the fact that the appointment of the respondent No. 1, herein, was so effected vide order, dated 11.06.2013, on compassionate ground, in pursuance of the order, dated 19.09.2007, passed by the writ Court in WP(c)4760/2007; however, erred in not appreciating the fact the appointing authority had effected the appointment, in question, clearly in excess of jurisdiction vested upon it and also, without following the due procedure as mandated for appointment on compassionate ground. 16. In view of the above position, Mr. 16. In view of the above position, Mr. Khataniar, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for the appellants, herein, has submitted that the claim made by the respondent No. 1, herein, in WP(c)4760/2007, would not have mandated an acceptance by the writ Court and the writ petition being WP(c)4572/2022, was called upon to be dismissed. 17. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, has supported the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge vide order, dated 07.02.2024, in WP(c)4572/ 2022, and has submitted that the directions so passed by the learned Single Judge vide the order, dated 07.02.2024, was so passed considering the peculiar circumstances arising in the matter and has further submitted that the learned Single Judge had also directed that the order, dated 07.02.2024, was not to be considered as a precedent. 18. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 19. It is an admitted position that the learned Single Judge, vide order, dated 19.09.2007, passed in WP(c)4760/2007, had required the respondent authorities to consider the case of the respondent No. 1, herein, for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the case of Das(supra). 20. The Director of Madrassa Education, Assam, while proceeding to appoint the respondent No. 1, herein, in pursuance of the directions passed by the writ Court in WP(c)4760/2007; had not ensured compliance with the procedure as laid down in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). However, what has to be noticed is that the respondent No. 1, herein, after being appointed vide order, dated 11.06.2013, is continuing in his service in Kacharigaon Senior Madrassa, Dhubri, and the respondent authorities have, neither, recalled, nor, reviewed the appointment of respondent No. 1, herein. It is seen that the respondent No. 1 has been rendering his service against the post of Chowkidar in Kacharigaon Senior Madrassa, Dhubri, without payment of any salaries till date. The learned Single Judge on noticing the said position and exercising his powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under peculiar circumstances existing in the matter, had proceeded to pass the directions as passed vide order, dated 07.02.2024, in WP(c)4572/2022. 21. The learned Single Judge on noticing the said position and exercising his powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under peculiar circumstances existing in the matter, had proceeded to pass the directions as passed vide order, dated 07.02.2024, in WP(c)4572/2022. 21. The learned Single Judge had further directed that the order, dated 07.02.2024, was not to be treated as a precedent as the said order was passed under peculiar circumstances arising in the matter before the writ Court. 22. In view of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge vide order, dated 07.02.2024, in WP(c)4572/2022, and the peculiar circumstances existing in the matter; we are not persuaded by Mr. Khataniar, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for the appellants, herein, to take a different view in the matter. In our considered view, the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the matter being a view so called upon to be taken in the peculiar circumstances arising in the matter; the same would not call for any interference. 23. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.