WP(C) 2702/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA None appears for the petitioner. I have heard Ms. R. Chokraborty, learne d Addl. Sr. G.A. appearing for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respond ents to regularize the service of the petitioner as Lower Division Assistant (LD A) under the respondents w.e.f. 28.03.04 alongwith all consequential benefits of salary etc. As per own admission of the petitioner, he was appointed under the respondents as LDA not against any post as no post of LDA was sanctioned. He was appointed purely on temporary and ad hoc basis and his service was continued fr om time to time. Be it stated here that the petitioner has passed HSLC examinati on and as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the qualification for the post of LDA is Higher Secondary passed with diploma in type writing. Acc ording to the petitioner the respondents have identified the post of LDA in the Cottage Industries and Museum in Sankardev Kalakhetra, Guwahati against which p ost the petitioner could be accommodated. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3322/2000 mak ing the same prayer. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 05.09.02 p roviding consideration of the case of the petitioner. By Annexure-3 communicatio n dated 27/29.03.2003, the Director of Industries and Commerce, i.e. the respond ent No. 6 made a proposal for appointment of the petitioner against the vacant p ost indicated in the communication. In the letter it was indicated that the peti tioner had rendered 7 years of service at a fixed pay of Rs. 900/- per month. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 6, it has been stated that th e petitioner lacks the basic qualification for appointment as LDA. As against th e petitioner’s qualification of HSLC, as per the affidavit, the required qualifi cation for appointment as LDA in the Directorate is Higher Secondary passed or i ts equivalent alongwith diploma in Type Writing. Thus, according to the stand of the respondents, the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of LDA. If th at be so, it is not understood as to how the respondent No. 6 could recommend th e petitioner for appointment as LDA by his letter dated 27/29.03.2003 mentioned above. The counter affidavit has further revealed that the service of the petit ioner was discontinued w.e.f. 01.09.99. Thus, the petitioner is not in service f or the last nine years. If he is not in service, there is no question of regular ization of his service. Secondly, if he is not qualified to hold the post of LDA , he could not be appointed as such. However, since the respondent No. 6 has mad e a recommendation vide Annexure-3 communication dated 27/29.03.2003, the Govt. may take an appropriate decision in the matter. This Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue a ny mandamus directing the respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner and that too retrospectively. The writ petition is disposed of.