WP(C) 189/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Buragoha in, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned A ddl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam. The petitioners, who were in contractual employment as Accredited Engine ers, have filed this writ petition, paying for setting aside and quashing of the W.T. Message dated 6.11.2010 (Annexure-6) and the letter dated 19.11.2010 (Anne xure-7), by which direction was issued not to engage Accredited Engineers who ar e non-diploma holders as well as non-civil diploma holders. Admittedly, the peti tioners are not civil diploma holders. The petitioners were appointed as Accredited Engineers on contractual ba sis for limited durations upon execution of agreement for contractual employment . At the time of engagement, the required qualification laid down was HSSLC unde r Science stream, candidates having diploma in Engineering were to be given pref erence. While the petitioners were in such contractual employment, the authority issued the Annexure-4 advertisement dated 19.5.2010 for engagement as Accredite d Engineers on contractual basis. Unlike the earlier occasion, the qualification prescribed was diploma in Civil Engineering. In response to the said advertisem ent, the petitioners No. 1 & 2 offered their candidatures, while the remaining 3 (three) petitioners did not offer their candidature. Referring to the Annexure-8 minutes of the review meeting of the Project Directors of the DRDA on Rural Development Programmes held on 5.10.2010 and 7.1 0.2010, it is the plea of the petitioners that only the services of non-diploma holders are required to be dispensed with and it is only the non-diploma holders , whose services are required to be discontinued w.e.f. 31.10.2010. It is the pl ea of the petitioners that since they are diploma holders, may not be in Civil E ngineering, as per the said minutes, their services was required to be extended beyond 31.10.2010. it is pertinent to mention here that in the writ petition, th e petitioners have stated that they are not eligible to offer their candidature in terms of the advertisement dated 19.5.2010(Annexure-4). However, the said adv ertisement is not under challenge in this proceeding. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel, has produced the written inst ruction furnished to her vide letter dated 5.2.2011, in which it has been stated that the petitioners having been appointed on contractual basis, which was vali d till 31.10.2010, their services stood automatically terminated on expiry of th e said date. According to the said written instruction, since the petitioners ar e not diploma holders in Civil Engineering, they are not eligible and qualified for offering their candidature in response to the said Annexure-4 advertisement dated 19.5.2010 and consequently there is no question of extension of their serv ices. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is some misconception in issuing the advertisement, inasmuch as, the said advertisement is contrary to the minutes of the review meeting held on 5.10.2010 and 7.10.2010 , in terms of which only the non-diploma holders were not allowed to continue be yond 31.10.2010. As noted above, the petitioners were appointed as Accredited Engineers a nd the required qualification was HSSLC pass under Science Stream with diploma i n Engineering to be given preference. It was not specified as to in which discip line, the diploma in Engineering was required. Unlike the said advertisement, in the present advertisement, it has been specified that only those candidates hav ing diploma in Civil Engineering, will be eligible to offer their candidature. T he particular qualification having been prescribed in the advertisement and the petitioners having not conformed to the requirement of the educational qualifica tion, cannot stake their claim on the basis of the minutes of the review meeting . The term Non-diploma holders will have to be understood in the context of th e qualification laid down in the said advertisement dated 19.5.2010. This Court while entertaining the writ petition by order dated 11.1.2011 , had provided continuation of the services of the petitioners if they were stil l in service. Today, Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel, has submitted th at the petitioners who are not civil diploma holders, are not in service beyond the contractual period, which however, been disputed by Mr. Sarma, learned couns el for the petitioners. Irrespective of the effect of the aforesaid interim order dated 11.1.201 1 and in view of the fact that the petitioners were in contractual engagement va lidity of which was upto 31.10.2010 coupled with the fact that the petitioners a re not qualified for the post of Accredited Engineers in terms of the advertisem ent dated 19.5.2010, this Court exercising its power of judicial review under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue any direction to the respon dents to continue with the services of the petitioners. If the petitioners are a ggrieved by the advertisement dated 19.5.2010, it will be open for them to make independent challenge to the said advertisement. Writ petition stands dismissed.