Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. From the facts of the cases narrated above it appears that the writ petitioners in some writ petitions claim to have been appointed as stipendiary teacher and thereafter on completion of training they were given regular pay scale but their salaries have not been paid, in some cases though they claim to be selected and appointed as stipendiary teachers the stipend has not been paid, in some cases claim that appointment were made on ad hoc basis for a fixed term without any selection and thereafter their services were regularized by way of adjustment against the sanctioned post, in some cases ad hoc appointments were claim to be made for a fixed term were extended until further order, in some cases claim, that appointments were made in fixed pay without any selection and thereafter though they were terminated at one point of time such order of termination was again cancelled, in some cases they claim to be appointed as stipendiary teacher after selection but not sent for training and also the stipend has not been paid, in some cases though the appointments were made without selection thereafter they claim to be regularised, some cases at the time of provincialisation their services were not provincialised and there after they were adjusted in terms of the direction issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Education Department, in some cases they claim to be regularly selected against sanctioned post but salary not paid, in some cases appointments were made by the Managing Committee before provincialisation but subsequently they were adjusted against the sanctioned post by the Director without selection, in some cases stipendiary teachers claim to be appointed, after selection but not allowed to sign attendance register and Deputy Inspector of Schools subsequently informed the authority that the appointments were not valid, in some cases subject teachers were appointed by the Managing Committee of a Government Higher Secondary School on honorary basis thereafter they were appointed by the Director without any selection, in some cases teachers were appointed by the Managing Committee on honorary basis and thereafter appointed as stipendiary teacher by the authority without any selection, in some cases the petitioners claim that they were regularized by way of adjustment pursuant to the decision of the Government taken on the report of the Monoharan Committee, in some cases they claim to be appointed as Hindi teacher on fixed pay against the allotment made in the non-provincialisation school by the Government, in some cases the appointments are initially made against the leave vacancy or deputation vacancy thereafter allowed to continue until further orders without any selection, in some cases teachers were appointed in primary school at fixed pay on the basis of the recommendation of the Managing Committee of the school without any selection, in some cases initial appointments were made on consolidated pay thereafter they were adjusted against the vacant sanctioned post without approval of the State level empowered committee during the year 2000-01 and in some eases petitioners claim to be appointed in the regular scale of pay after due selection but have prayed for adjustment against regularly sanctioned post.

5. The gist of argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were either appointed on the basis of selection made by the competent authority after due advertisement or they were appointed, may be without any selection, but by the competent authority or they were initially appointed on ad hoc basis for a fixed period of term or against the leave vacancy but said appointments were adjusted, subsequently against the regularly sanctioned post by the authority or they were appointed on ad hoc basis for a fixed period of time and thereafter their term of appointments were extended until further order and by virtue of such appointment they are serving and, therefore, they cannot be deprived of their salaries, more so, when the respondent authorities have extracted their services as teachers in various primary, middle high or higher secondary schools. The further submission of some of the learned Counsel, is that some petitioners though were appointed as stipendiary teachers by the competent authority, after due selection, they have not been sent for training and also not paid the stipend. Therefore, it is contended, that the respondents may be directed, to send them for training so that they can enjoy the salary in the regular scale of pay after their successful completion of training.

7. Relying on the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Assam, Education Department, Mr. Choudhury, has further submitted that the persons who have been appointed by the competent authority under the rules and against the valid sanctioned post but without any selection may be entitled to receive salary for the period for which they rendered their services, with the approval of the finance department but their services would be liable to be terminated. It has further been submitted that the persons who were appointed in excess of the validly sanctioned post or who were appointed on ad hoc basis without any selection and whose services even if extended until further orders without the approval of the Government, shall not be entitled to any salary, their entry into the service being illegal. Regarding the payment of stipend, to the stipendiary teachers, the learned senior counsel line submitted that the persons who were appointed as stipendiary teacher without any advertisement and without selection and also who were not appointed against validly sanctioned posts, shall also not be entitled to any salary. The person appointed by the Managing Committee prior to provincialisation and whose services were adjusted subsequently without the approval of the finance department shall not be entitled to salary.

9. The learned senior counsel has submitted that as a large numbers of teachers are involved in the present batch of writ petitions who claim that they were appointed by the competent authority after due selection and are still in service, therefore, entitled to salary, a high level inquiry is required to be made in the Government level to ascertain whether appointments were made after due selection, against the regularly sanctioned posts and upon inquiry, if any person is found to have been appointed against the regularly sanctioned post after due selection they will be entitled to receive salary from the Government as the Government cannot be burdened with the payment of salary to the persons who were illegally appointed either without selection or without following the due process of law or claims to be in service by virtue of fake appointment orders.