WP(C) 565/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respond ents to appoint the two petitioners as stipendiary teacher and regular teacher i n accordance with Government Policy and also the Aannexures D,E,F and G letters dated 17.2.2006, 16.1.2006, 17.2.2006 and 17.5.2006. On being asked Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits th at the petitioners were never appointed in any school although a statement has b een made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that they were appointed as Assista nt Teacher on honourary basis in their respective provincialised schools way bac k in 1986-87. If we go by the statement it was incumbent on the part of the peti tioners to name the schools in which they have been serving since 86-87 but the petitioners have not named the schools. Be that as it may this aspect of the mat ter need not detain us as Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has fairl y submits that the petitioners are not in employment role of any school. However , he submits that the right of the petitioner flows from the judgment and order dated 17.11.94 passed by this Court in C.R. No. 157/1994 and C.R. No. 3241/1993. On perusal of the said judgment and order what is seen is that a direction was i ssued for appointment of the petitioners involved therein within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment and order. The said judgment was passed on the basis of a particular policy for appointment of teachers on honou rary basis and thereafter to regularize such services. The petitioners being not in employment of any school as assistant teacher even on honourary basis could not have claimed for appointment/ regularization of the ir services in the garb of purported scheme. Long 15 (fifteen) years have passed since the aforesaid judgment and order was p assed. The petitioners filed the instant writ petition on 11.2.2009 i.e. after 1 5 years claiming appointment on honourary and on regular basis. This Court in J ahangir Alam Vs. State of Assam (2003) 2 GLT 544 has also held that honourary te achers appointed in provincialised schools do not have any right to get regulari zation of their services. If the statement made in para. 2 to the writ petitio n is to be accepted, the petitioners were appointed as honourary teachers in a p rovincialised school and , if that be so there is no question of regularization of their services which is not a mode of recruitment as per the recruitment rule s. However, as submitted by Mr. Das learned counsel for the petitioner, the peti tioners were never appointed as honourary teachers in any school. In view of the aforesaid factual background of the case the prayer of the petiti oner for their appointment as honourary teacher or as regular teacher de hors t he recruitment rules cannot be accepted. The petitioners have placed reliance a s the aforesaid letters. Those correspondences were made favouring the case of the petitioners. As responsible officers of the department the officers who had issued the letters are expected to know the recruitment rules and cannot issue o rders favouring the case of particular person or persons. This kind of communica tions also give rise to litigation. Without the issuance of the aforesaid commun ications made in 2006, the petitioners could not have approached this Court. The case of the petitioner is also barred by the principles of limitation and under no circumstances an order ban be passed directing the respondents to appoint ca ndidates de-hors the recruitment rules. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordi ngly it is dismissed.