WP(C) 6060/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY A writ of mandamus has been sought for to regularize the service of the petition ers as LDA-cum-Typist in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Assam (her eafter referred to as the ’Department’) and for release of their salary from Jul y, 2001, which according to them, is in arrears. The petitioners claim to be re ndering their services till date. I have heard Ms. P Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H Rahman, learned State counsel, Assam. In short the petitioners have averred that after serving in the Department, on c asual basis for sometime, they eventually participated in a selection process in itiated in the year 2000 for the post of LDA-cum-Typist. On the conclusion of t he process, they were, vide office order No. DSW (ICDS)/E/201/pt/50-9 dated 28.0 3.2001 of the Director, Social Welfare, Assam, Guwahati appointed in the above c apacity in the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Guwahati on adho c basis for a period of one year in the pay scale of Rs.2890/- to Rs. 5725/- per month. Their places of posting were also indicated in the said office order. The same also indicated that the appointments had been made with the approval of the State Level Empowered Committee. Their grievance is that though they ought to have been appointed on regular basis, they were denied the same and, further , their salary from July, 2001 is also withheld. When they approached the autho rities they assured to redress their grievances on both counts. As no action wa s taken in terms of the assurances made, the petitioner being exasperated by the long wait, has turned to this Court for redress. The Director of Social Welfare Department, Assam, in his counter, in essence, ha s averred that the adhoc appointment of the petitioners in terms of the order to that effect expired on 28.04.2001 (sic) and at the end of it, they were release d from service. It has, thus, been contended that the petitioners’ claim for re gularization as well as salary is misconceived. Ms. Gogoi, has urged that the petitioners having been appointed following a sele ction in a public participatory process, they were entitled to be regularized. They having been provided with an adhoc appointment for a limited term on the as surance that their services would be regularized, the impugned action is clearly arbitrary and unconstitutional and, therefore, the relief, as prayed for, ought to be granted to them in the interest of justice. The learned counsel asserted that the petitioners are still in service. Mr. Rahman, abiding by the pleaded stand of the Department, has urge that as the petitioners’ stand released from service after the expiry of the original term of their adhoc appointment, the contentions to the contrary are, per se, untenab le and, therefore, ought to be negated. The rival pleadings and the arguments on the basis thereof, have been duly consi dered. The office order dated 28.03.2001, appointing the petitioners as LDA-cum -Typist, in unambiguous terms proclaims that their recruitment had been on adhoc basis for a period of 1 year reckoned from the date of their appointment, the t enure whereof, therefore, ended on 28.04.2002. The petitioners have annexed a c ommunication dated 28.02.2002 of the Deputy Secretary, Government of Assam, Soci al Welfare Department, containing the sanction of the Government for retention o f temporary posts under the 89 new ICDS Project for the period ending on 28.02.2 002. There is no material to demonstrate that the petitioners’ posts have been retained beyond that date. Though, a faint attempt has been made on the part of the petitioners to contend unfairness in according adhoc appointments to them, the same having a selection, in absence of any formal challenge thereto, this Co urt is not inclined to entertain the same. The facts on record also do not uneq uivocally evidence any assurance on the part of the departmental authorities to regularize their services for whatever worth. The petitioners’ claim of renderi ng their services till date also do not finds support from the facts or document s available on records. In absence of any persuasive material or evidence to es tablish that the posts against which the petitioners had been appointed on adhoc basis, had been retained beyond 28.02.2002, their claim for regularization, can not be sustained. It having been admitted by the respondents that they had rend ered their services for one year from 28.03.2001, they are, however, entitled to their pay and allowances for the said period only, which would be computed and released to them within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of th e certified copy of this order. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. No costs.