WP(C) 2366/2011 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. MH Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also hear d Mr. G Goswami, learned standing counsel for the Assam Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mis sion. The Department of Education and its officials are represented by Mr. UK Go swami, learned standing counsel. The Union of India is represented by Mr. N Zama n, learned Central Govt. counsel. 2. The petitioners who were engaged as ’Siksha Karmis’ in the Sanjyogi Siks ha Kendras located in Sonitpur District have approached the Court seeking a dire ction for continuation of their engagement as Siksha Karmis in their respective Sanjyogi Siksha Kendras. 3. Mr. MH Choudhury, learned counsel submits that the contractual appointme nt of the petitioners made between 2005-2007 was continued for some of the petit ioner up till April, 2010 but the same has been discontinued since then renderin g the Siksha Karmis jobless. The petitioners contend that there is need for c ontinuation of the service of the Siksha Karmis and accordingly their contract o f service should be renewed. 4. However Mr. G Goswami, learned standing counsel for the Assam Sarba Siks ha Abhijan Mission submits that the Sanjyogi Siksha Kendras were set up with a s pecific objective to bring back the drop out children or such children who did n ot receive any schooling, to the main stream schools and the Siksha Karmis were engaged only for this purpose. The learned counsel submits that once the targete d children were brought into the main stream schools, the task of the Siksha Kar mis and the Sanjyogi Siksha Kendras are over and there is no justification for c ontinuation of the services of the Siksha Karmis. 5. The learned counsel submits that in any event, the petitioners were appo inted temporarily on contract basis and since their tenure is already over, they can have no enforceable right for continuance of their service since the scheme is discontinued and fund is not available for payment of salaries for the disen gaged Siksha Karmis. 6. However, Mr. MH Choudhury, learned counsel reiterates that the task of t he Sanjyogi Siksha Kendras is not yet over and the respondent should be directed to continue the service of the Siksha Karmis of the Sanjyogi Siksha Kendras. 7. It appears from the rival submission that in respect of similar claims o f Siksha Karmis of Sanjyogi Siksha Kendras, this Court has dismissed the writ pe tition filed by similarly situated petitioners. But there is also instance of th e Court issuing notice without interim order on the writ petition, where the Sik sha Karmis of the Sanjyogi Siksha Kendras have prayed for continuation of their service. 8. Having considered the submissions made and taking into account that rete ntion of service of the Siksha Karmis in the Sanjyogi Siksha Kendras is a policy decision of the Government and there cannot be any enforceable claim for contin uation of their services, I am inclined to dismiss this writ petition by followi ng the order passed in a similar case on 7th September, 2010 i.e. in WP(C) No.20 82/2010 (Abdul Awal Poramanik vs. State of Assam). 9. Accordingly the writ petition is held to be without merit and the same i s dismissed. Of course the dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the w ay of the Central and the State Government to take a policy decision for re-enga gement of the petitioners (Siksha Karmis) in the concerned Sanjyogi Siksha Kendr as. 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.