WP(C) 2082/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. AFNU Mollah, lea rned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Sarma, learned Stan ding Counsel appearing on behalf of the Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission, Assam. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.01.2010 issued by the Distric t Mission Coordinator, Siksha Abhijan Mission, Goalpara whereby a decision has b een taken to discontinue the services of the petitioners who were serving as Sik sha Karmies, on and from 31.03.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that since the appointm ent of the petitioners were purely on contract basis a direction by this Court t o the respondent authorities to continue the contract appointment may not be a l egally justified proposition, however, as the petitioners have rendered effectiv e service for considerable period of time the respondent authority may be direct ed to absorb the petitioners in any such suitable vacancies, which may arise in future. To appoint and/or absorb the petitioners, who served the Department as ’Siksha K armis’ on contract basis, for a considerable period of time, in such temporary o r regular vacancies in future after termination of their contract as ’Siksha Kar mis’, is a policy decision of the Government. No such policy decision for absorp tion of ’Siksha Karmis’ in other suitable service of the Department, after expi ry of their contractual tenure, has been brought to the notice of the Court and admittedly there is none till date. Therefore, a blanket direction to the respon dent Department to absorb and/or appoint the petitioners in future vacancies in the department or in any such post may not be appropriate at this stage. However , there is no conceivable impediment whatsoever, for the State Govt. authority t o take any such appropriate policy decision to utilize the services of such expe rienced teachers, such as the petitioners, who served as ’Siksha Karmis’ for con siderable period, in any suitable future vacancies in the Department. Learned counsel for the respondents-SSA by referring to their affidavit-in-oppos ition has submitted that the selection and appointment of the petitioners were m ade purely on contract basis for a definite period. Therefore, there is no scope to extend/continue their services in the same post any further. In view of the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as we ll as the respondents, no relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioner in the instant case. Accordingly, with the above observation the instant writ petition stands dismiss ed. However, in the facts and circumstances, I pass no order as to cost.