WP(C) 3128/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Talukdar, along with Mrs. B. Hazarika, learned Standing counsel for the Water R esource Department. The petitioner presently serving as a work charge employee under the res pondents on fixed pay basis is aggrieved by the order dated 10.05.2005, passed b y the Executive Engineer, Palasbari, Gumi Project (W.R.) Division, Mizra, by whi ch her prayer for promotion to the post of Sectional Assistant was rejected. The aforesaid order dated 10.05.2005 was passed pursuant to the order da ted 02.03.2005 passed by this Court in W.P(C) No.1594/2005 filed by the petition er. In the Writ Petition, the prayer made was for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the promotional post of Sectional Assistant. The W rit Petition was disposed of by order dated 02.03.2005, directing the respondent s to consider the representation which was submitted by the petitioner. The repr esentation has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 10.05.2005. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner was first a ppointed by order dated 30.10.1998. Her appointment was as work charge fixed pay employee. She continued in her service with time to time extension. Her service was terminated by order dated 18.01.2002. Being aggrieved she approached this C ourt by filing W.P(C) No.519/2002. On the basis of the interim order passed by t his Court on 04.02.2002, the petitioner is still continuing in her aforesaid ser vice. When the matter rested thus, the respondents took measures for filing th e promotional post. It was the grievance of the petitioner that she was not cons idered for her promotion. It is on the basis of such grievance she filed the afo resaid Writ Petition vide W.P(C) No.1594/2005 and the same was disposed of by or der dated 02.03.2005, providing disposal of representation of the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner is not a regular employee and the claim for re gularization in such cases is no longer res integra. The Full Bench of this Cou rt in Jitendra Kalita and Others Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2006 (2) GLT, 6 54 (FB) and upon the reference to the various circulars issued by the Govt. of A ssam has held that regularization is not a mode of appointment. It has been held that long continuance of employees on irregular basis will not base any legal r ight to claim regularization. In the impugned order dated 10.05.2005, the authority has highlighted as to how the petitioner is not entitled to claim promotion. According to the rele vant rules, such promotion can be considered from amongst the regular Khalashis holding post in the time scale of pay with minimum 8 years of service. Further t he candidate will also have to be H.S.L.C. examination passed. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the pet itioner is also H.S.L.C. passed and she has more than 8 years of service, she is entitled to be considered for promotion. It is true that the petitioner has bee n in service for more than 8 years but her continuance in service is on the basi s of the interim order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition which is now pendin g disposal. Further requirement of 8 years of continuous service is only in resp ect of regular Khalashis and not work charge employees like that of the petition er. Needless to say that promotion in any Govt. Department will have to be effec ted on the basis of the relevant rules, taking into consideration the case of al l eligible candidates and such promotion cannot be granted on pick and choose ba sis. As regards the claim of the petitioner that her case was not considered for direct recruitment, it is the stand of the respondents that direct recruitme nt was made for backlogs candidates pertaining to ST(P), which the petitioner is not, she being SC. For what has been stated above, I do not find it appropriate to set asid e the order dated 10.05.2005. Consequently the Writ Petition stands dismissed.