JUDGMENT : VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ. 1. This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3180/2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein [petitioner No.2 in the writ petition] along with another person in the light of the decision rendered by this Court vide judgment dated 31.03.2023 in WP (C) No. 6403/2021 [ Purnima Hore & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors .] and other connected writ petitions. 2. The appellant had approached the Writ Court by filing the above referred writ petition [WP(C) No.3180/2017] and prayed for granting the following reliefs:- “i) By setting aside and quashing the impugned letters dtd. 14-2-2017 issued by the respondent No.4 asking the petitioners to deduct monthly contribution under the New Pension Scheme instead of General Provident Fund (GPF) (Annexure-7 & 8 to the writ petition); ii) By holding that the case of the petitioners are covered under the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules’ 1969 and not under the New Pension Rules’ 2005; iii) By directing the respondent authorities to pay the arrears salaries of the petitioners w.e.f. 1-7-1995 to 21-8-2005; iv) By granting any other relief/reliefs as your Lordship may deem fit and proper; And after perusal of the record, cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties, your Lordships may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or to pass such further or other order/orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide order dated 26.11.1993 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup and he was posted at Rangapani Islamia M.E. Madrassa. However, later on in the year 1999, Ismail Hussain High School was amalgamated with Rangapani Islamia M.E. Madrassa and the appellant was serving in the said school. Later on, the service of the appellant was regularized vide order dated 20.08.2005 passed by the District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup. 4. However, later on in the year 1999, Ismail Hussain High School was amalgamated with Rangapani Islamia M.E. Madrassa and the appellant was serving in the said school. Later on, the service of the appellant was regularized vide order dated 20.08.2005 passed by the District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup. 4. Though the appellant had not pleaded the complete facts in the writ petition, but the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, noted that the petitioner No.2 [appellant herein] was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup on 26.11.1993 and thereupon, he got the salaries up to 1995 but subsequent to 1995, the appellant had not received his salaries. The learned Single Judge has further noted that on the basis of a report being submitted by the Manoharan Committee, it was found that the appellant was appointed in excess of the sanctioned posts. The Government of Assam thereafter took a decision to regularize the services of those teachers who were appointed in excess of the sanctioned post and their services were regularized vide an order dated 11.08.2005 passed by the Director of Elementary Education against the vacant post. Pursuant to that, order dated 20.08.2005 was issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup, whereby the appellant was allowed to join against the vacant post and school as mentioned therein as the post had already been filed up by way of transfer. 5. The said facts noted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 has neither been contradicted by the appellant in the writ appeal nor by the counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing of the instant writ appeal. 6. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has observed that the appellant is claiming pensionary benefit in terms of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 [hereinafter referred to be “Rules of 1969”] while contending that his case would not be covered under the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme, 2009 which came into effect from 01.02.2005. However, the learned Single Judge has observed that the case of the appellant falls within the category of excess teachers whose services were regularized after 01.02.2005 and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Old Pension Scheme covered by the provisions of the Rules of 1969 as well as the appellant would also not be entitled to subscribe to the General Provident Fund. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in Purnima Hore (supra). 7. For the purpose of deciding this writ appeal, it is beneficial to take note of the judgment rendered by this Court in Purnima Hore ( supra) while deciding the claim of excess teachers for their entitlement under the Rules of 1969. 8. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered by this Court in Purnima Hore (supra) while dealing with the cases of excess teachers is reproduced hereinafter: “103. These writ petitioners were appointed by the Deputy Inspector of Schools and they received their salary and allowances from the date of initial appointment up to the year 1996 and thereafter they were not paid. At that relevant point of time, certain irregularities in the appointments were detected in the Education Department and the Education Department was unable to determine as to which of the appointments were illegal, irregular or regular. In view of the above, an Enquiry Committee was constituted headed by Sri S. Manoharan, IAS which in common parlance called the Manoharan Committee. The cases of various teachers were subjected to scrutiny by the Manoharan Committee. It is an admitted position that the Manoharan Committee had categorized the appointments of teachers who were subjected to scrutiny into three categories. The first category being such teachers whose entry into the service was found to be illegal; the second category being such teachers whose entry to the services were found to be irregular and the third category being such teachers whose entry in the service were considered to be legitimate. While making the scrutiny, it was found that there were various appointments which were made in excess of the vacant posts and such teachers who were appointed in excess of the vacant posts are commonly termed as Excess Teachers. It is an admitted position that in respect to the second category of cases, whose entry into the service was considered to be irregular, two Cabinet decisions were taken being dated 20.01.2000 and 24.02.2005. In the first Cabinet decision dated 20.01.2000, a decision was taken to regularly induct into services 3511 number of teachers. In the second Cabinet decision which was taken on 24.02.2005, a decision was taken to induct further 2776 number of teachers. In the first Cabinet decision dated 20.01.2000, a decision was taken to regularly induct into services 3511 number of teachers. In the second Cabinet decision which was taken on 24.02.2005, a decision was taken to induct further 2776 number of teachers. It is an admitted fact that in respect to the petitioners before this Court, their services were regularized after 01.02.2005 on the dates so mentioned in the chart hereinabove. They had given an undertaking at the time of submitting the joining report that they would come within the ambit of New Pension Scheme. One very important aspect of the matter is that these petitioners, pursuant to their regularization in the year 2005 itself, have accepted their appointment order without any demurrer and now have approached this Court in the year 2020, 2021, 2022, i.e. almost after around 15 years. 104. This Court while dealing with the category of teachers belonging to the OBB Scheme has dealt with the concept of regularization as observed by the Supreme Court in the case District Bar Association, Bandipora (supra). In doing so, this Court has also opined that as regularization is not a source of recruitment but is aimed at validating certain irregular appointments which may have come to be made in genuine and legitimate administrative exigencies, the State would be within its power to formulate a Scheme within the exception curved out in paragraph No.53 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra). The Manoharan Committee and the Cabinet decisions have categorically observed that appointments of those teachers which were irregular were to be regularized by virtue of the Cabinet decision. In a recent judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abani Baruah & Others vs. State of Assam & Others , MANU/GH/0368/2022 , the Coordinate Bench dealt with the question as to whether those teachers who were appointed in excess of the sanctioned posts as in the instant case, would be governed by the Rules of 1969. The Coordinate Bench of this Court after taking into account Rule 31 of the Rules of 1969 held that the petitioners therein, having been appointed in excess of the available sanctioned vacant posts, their entry into the Government services prior to 01.02.2005 were not legitimate under law and the petitioners therein have to be accepted that they have not entered the Government service in a manner so as to be given the entitlement to the aforesaid period to be included as a part of the Government service that they have rendered. The Coordinate Bench of this Court further held that there was no infirmity in the order of regularization dated 22.08.2005 which categorically provided that the petitioners therein would be governed by the NDCPS. Paragraph No.17 to 21 of the said judgment, being relevant, is quoted herein under:- “17. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid pronouncements laid down by the Supreme Court, it would be discernible that in order to be in a substantive employment the conditions to be fulfilled, amongst others, would be that the person holds the post for indefinite period, i.e., for a long duration in contradistinction to a person who holds it for a definite or a temporary period, the appointment to the post is made by the proper authority after the person concerned passes the prescribed test and the post to which the appointment is made is vacant, although it may be immaterial as to in what manner the post is designated in officialese. If all the three conditions are simultaneously satisfied it could be understood that the person concerned was in a substantive employment. 18. Having taken note of the requirements to accept an employment to be a substantive employment, we have to understand that the second condition in Rule 31 of the Pension Rules of 1969 requires that the appointment to the post is made by the proper authority after the person concerned passes the prescribed test and the post to which the appointment is made is vacant i.e. a sanctioned vacant post. 19. In the aforesaid context, in the instant case, it is an admitted position that the writ petitioners were appointed in the year 1993, may be, by following some process, but it was in excess of the available sanctioned vacant posts. 19. In the aforesaid context, in the instant case, it is an admitted position that the writ petitioners were appointed in the year 1993, may be, by following some process, but it was in excess of the available sanctioned vacant posts. If it is accepted that the petitioners were in employment from the year 1993 and the same may have been for a long duration, but as regards the other conditions that the appointment to the post is to be made by a proper authority after the person concerned passes the prescribed test and that the post to which the appointment was made is a sanctioned vacant post, would not be satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the present case, more so, in view of the conclusion that had already been arrived that the petitioners were appointed in excess of the available sanctioned vacant posts. Having been appointed in excess of the available sanctioned vacant posts, not only the condition that the post is required to be a vacant sanctioned post would not be satisfied, even the requirement that the person concerned would have to pass the prescribed test may also be not satisfied as the selection or the prescribed test was done only in respect of the available sanctioned vacant posts for which the selection process was undertaken and, therefore, even if the petitioners may have participated in some selection process, it cannot be said that they have passed the prescribed test which is a requirement to be in a substantive employment. 20. In the absence of the satisfaction of two of the conditions precedent that the petitioners ought to have been appointed on regular basis and against sanctioned vacant posts, prior to 01.02.2005, which is the cutoff date for the applicability of the NDCPS, it has to be understood that the present writ petitioners have not joined the Government services on a substantive and permanent employment prior to 01.02.2005, although they may have been appointed or continued in service in some other manner. Further, as the petitioners were not in an employment which was substantive and permanent, they have not satisfied the requirement of the condition of qualifying service provided in Rule 31 of the Pension Rules of 1969 that the employment must be substantive and permanent. Further, as the petitioners were not in an employment which was substantive and permanent, they have not satisfied the requirement of the condition of qualifying service provided in Rule 31 of the Pension Rules of 1969 that the employment must be substantive and permanent. If the entry into Government service of the present writ petitioners in the year 1993 were not legitimate under the law, it has to be accepted that they have not entered the Government service in a legitimate manner, so as to be given an entitlement to the aforesaid period of service to be also included as a part of the Government services they had rendered. 21. When we look into the order dated 22.08.2005 by which the petitioners were regularized in service w.e.f. the date of joining against the vacant posts, it is discernible that the petitioners had joined the Government services on a regular basis against sanctioned vacant posts subsequent to 01.02.2005. From such point of view, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 22.08.2005 which provides that the petitioners would be governed by the NDCPS.” 105. In the instant cases, as the facts are similar to the facts in the case of Abani Baruah (supra), this Court has no reasons to differ with the observation so made in the above quoted paragraphs. 106. This Court further may add, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the petitioners are entitled to the similar treatment in view of the order dated 12.05.2015 in WP(C) No.4169/2009 as well as the order dated 04.08.2015 in WP(C) No.5705/2011. It is also the categorical submission that pursuant to the order dated 04.08.2015 passed in WP(C) No.5705/2011, the petitioners therein have already been granted the relief by the Director of Education thereby counting the past services for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits as per the provisions of the Rules of 1969. 107. This Court while dealing with the category of Dropped Teachers by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Col. (Retd.) B. J. Akkara (supra) as well as Dr. 107. This Court while dealing with the category of Dropped Teachers by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Col. (Retd.) B. J. Akkara (supra) as well as Dr. O.P. Nijhawan (supra) held that the principle of res judicata or estoppel shall not bar the State from resisting the instant writ petitions in respect to the similarly situated persons though the order passed by this Court had already been implemented upon. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the order dated 12.05.2015 in WP(C) No.4169/2009, this Court had already held that the said order shall not be a precedent in view of the fact that the said order was passed ignoring the insertion of Rule 2A by the Amending Rules with effect from 01.02.2005 as well as Rule 31 of the Rules of 1969. Apart from the above, the said order dated 12.05.2015 in WP(C) No.4169/2009 was passed in the case of Dropped Teachers and this Court is baffled with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said order should be applied to the facts of the instant case which is in the category of Excess Teachers. As regards the order dated 04.08.2015 passed in WP(C) No.5705/2011, this Court with due respect is constrained to observe that it seems the attention of the Coordinate Bench of this Court was not drawn that there is a major difference between teachers who fall in the category of Dropped Teachers and those teachers who have been found to be irregular on account of being appointed against non-sanctioned vacancies and thereby termed as Excess Teachers. If the said aspect would have brought to the notice of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Coordinate Bench would not have applied the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 12.05.2015 passed in WP(C) No.4169/2009 to the case of Excess Teachers. 108. Under such circumstances, this Court is further of the opinion that the claim of the writ petitioners to be granted the benefit under the Old Pension Scheme thereby treating the period of service rendered earlier prior to being regularized for the purpose of pension is totally misconceived. 108. Under such circumstances, this Court is further of the opinion that the claim of the writ petitioners to be granted the benefit under the Old Pension Scheme thereby treating the period of service rendered earlier prior to being regularized for the purpose of pension is totally misconceived. Besides, the petitioners having accepted the order of regularization passed in the year 2005 and thereupon having waited for a period of almost 15 years, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to relief as claimed for. Taking into account the orders of Regularization, the petitioners in the instant category of cases cannot claim rights under the Rules of 1969. They shall be regulated under the NDCPS, 2009.” 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant for his entitlement under the Rules of 1969. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that this Court in WP (C) No. 3662/2009 [ Dilip Kumar Medhi & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam & Ors. ] and WP (C) No. 1765/2012 [ Manoranjan Das & Ors. Vs. the State of Assam & Ors . ] decided on 28.04.2015, has held that the teachers, whose services have been regularized even after the implementation of the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme as per the decision of the Cabinet of the State Government, are entitled to get the pensionary benefits as per the Rules of 1969 and not as per the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme, made applicable from 01.02.2005. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that another Single Bench of this Court in WP (C) No. 8694/2018 [ Sukumar Sarkar & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam & Ors. ] and WP (C) No.7873/2015 [ Nomal Ch. Bordoloi & Ors. Vs. the State of Assam & Ors .] decided on 12.08.2021, while relying upon the decision in Dilip Mumar Medhi (supra), took the similar view. 12. After going through the orders passed by 2(two) Single Judges of this Court in Dilip Kumar Medhi (supra) and Sukumar Sarkar (supra), we find that those decisions are pertaining to the dropped teachers and not the excess teachers. 13. 12. After going through the orders passed by 2(two) Single Judges of this Court in Dilip Kumar Medhi (supra) and Sukumar Sarkar (supra), we find that those decisions are pertaining to the dropped teachers and not the excess teachers. 13. The Single Judge of this Court in Purnima Hore (surpa) has rejected a similar contention while observing that major difference between the teachers falling in the category of Dropped Teachers and those teachers who have been found to be irregular on account of being appointed against the non- sanctioned vacancies and thereby termed as Excess Teachers has not been noticed by the Coordinate Bench which has ordered for grant of pensionary benefits to the excess teachers under the Rules of 1969. 14. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Purnima Hore (supra) in respect of Excess Teachers, we do not find any infirmity in the same for the reason that when the services of the Excess Teachers have been regularized, admittedly after implementation of the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme, 2009, the claim of the Excess Teachers for benefit under the Rules of 1969 is bereft of any merit. 15. Hence, the judgments rendered by learned Single Judges of this Court in Dilip Kumar Medhi (supra) and Sukumar Sarkar (supra) are of no help to the appellant. No other argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3180/2017. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.