WP(C) 1796/2011 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. PK Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. SK Das, learned standing counsel for the Education Department who represents all the respondents. 2. The petitioners who are serving as honourary teachers after being appoin ted by the Managing Committee of the P.B. Lohakarpara High School of Nalbari Dis trict are seeking intervention of the Court for regularization of their service. 3. Mr. SK Das, learned standing counsel has referred to the decision of thi s Court in Jahangir Alom vs. State of Assam reported in 2003 (3) GLT 544 to cont end that merely because a person is rendering service as a honourary teacher for several years, he has no right to claim regularization of service in a provinci alised school, as the appointments were made de-hors the Rules, by School Managi ng Committee. In this decision, the Court held that appointments made outside th e Rules cannot give rise to legitimate expectation for a honourary teacher to ha ve his service regularized, since the doctrine of equitable principle cannot be applied to achieve what is not contemplated by law. 4. Mr. PK Goswami, learned counsel on the other hand produces a copy of the Office Memorandum dated 21st January, 2004 under Memo No.A(1)E.621/2003/320 to show that the petitioners as serving honorary teachers are entitled to considera tion of age relaxation as provided in the said circular and as and when posts ar e sanctioned and petitioners apply, their cases should be considered by granting them the benefit of age relaxation under the Office Memorandum dated 21st Janua ry, 2004. 5. Having regard to the contention made, I’m of the view that no direction can be given for regularization of service of the petitioners in view of the law laid down by this Court in Jahangir Alom (Supra). However, when posts are sanct ioned and a process of regular appointment commences, if the petitioners apply, they should be given the benefit of age relaxation in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 21st January, 2004 under Memo No.A(1)E.621/2003/320. 6. The case is disposed of accordingly.