Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. While the appellants were working in their respective schools, an allegation was made that the appointments made by the authority concerned on 20.11.1999 and 4.12.1999 were illegal as the same was made without selection and approval of the Selection Board. As a result, an enquiry was conducted by Sri TC Kataki, EAC against the alleged illegal appointments of LP School Teachers as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang.

6. The appellants produced their relevant documents before the Enquiry Officer to establish their claim that they were duly selected and appointed by the Selection Board after due process and approval. However, the Enquiry Report that was submitted on 15.7.2003 to the District Magistrate by the Enquiry Officer reflected that no records or documents etc. were made available from the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Mangaldoi and that the appointments made on 20.11.1999 and 4.12.1999 were all illegal and irregular as these appointments were made without the selection and approval of the Selection Board and it was recommended that the District Elementary Education Officer/Deputy Inspector of Schools be directed to take immediate steps for suspension/ cancellation of the appointment of the L.P. Teachers as per provision of law.

14. The State respondents by filing their affidavit-in-opposition contend that Rule 3 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincilization) Rules 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Provincialisation Rules of 1977) prescribed the mode of recruitment to the posts of Assistant Teachers in LP Schools and according to which, a detailed process of selection is prescribed besides prescribing the eligibility criteria for the candidates to be selected by a Selection Board. That de-hors the statutory prescription under Rule 3 of the Provincialisation Rules of 1977, the then i/c of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Mangaldoi in the year 1999, appointed altogether 302 teachers vide appointment orders which were dated 20.11.1999 and 4.12.1999. Such appointments were not only made without any selection but the approval of the Selection Board was not obtained and in fact the appointments were made against non-existent posts. The Magisterial Enquiry Report dated 15.7.2003 was a testimony to the illegal appointments.

21. The Senior counsel further submits that assuming for argument's sake that the selection and appointments were not preceded by strict compliance of the relevant Rules, they can only be termed as 'irregular' but not 'illegal'. He therefore contends that while illegal appointments would be fatal but in case of irregular appointments, the same could be cured by the authorities at any stage.

22. In the above context by referring to the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No. 8 on 28.2.2014 Mr. D Das, the Ld.Senior counsel submits that the Meeting Minutes dated 26.10.1999 annexed to the said affidavit contains the names of about 164 candidates who were selected for appointment to the posts of LP School Teachers under the Mangaldoi Sub-Division. He submits that the names of the appellants who filed WA No.79 of 2015 arising out of WP(C) No. 5048 of 2012 along with 112 other candidates are amongst the names in the Select List. He further submits that from the 302 candidates appointed, 164 candidates were recommended by the Selection Board while 17 candidates were compassionate appointees. He therefore argues that although there might have been some irregularities in the appointment of teachers other than the 164 candidates and the 17 compassionate appointees, for such reason the candidates whose names otherwise appear in the Select List, could not have been penalized. The Senior counsel therefore submits that termination of service ought to have been confined only to those who were appointed without selection. The State respondents are therefore not justified in terminating all the 285 Teachers en mass vide order dated 9.10.2012 while they could just separate the chaff from the grain.