WP(C) 8748/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. K hound, learned Standing Counsel, BTC. I have also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learne d Standing Counsel, Education Department. By means of this writ petition filed on 19.12.2005, the petitioners have prayed for regularization of their services with further claim of arrear salary. The pe titioners were appointed as LDA and Gardener vide Annexure-3 orders passed in th e year 1997-98. The orders will reflect that they were so appointed against non- sanctioned post purely on temporary basis on fixed pay. In the writ petition, the petitioners have referred to their engagement orders, but have not stated anything about the orders dated 12.11.2004, by which, the BT C authority had dispensed with their services. The said order has been brought o n record by annexing a copy of the same in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4. While Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasized on regula rization of services of the petitioners, Mr. Khound, learned Standing Counsel, B TC has submitted that going by the very nature of the appointment of the petitio ners, there is no question of regularization of their services. In this connecti on, he has referred to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4, in which it has been stated that the petitioners were appointed under the par ticular policy called New Education Policy of the erstwhile BAC in the year 1997 along with the Mother Teachers, English Teachers and Malis (Gardeners). It has been stated that the said policy was never approved by the Government of Assam a nd thus could not be continued and consequently, the services of the petitioner had to be dispensed with by the said order dated 12.11.2004 issued under the sig nature of the Joint Secretary, BTC. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties an d the entire materials on record. Admittedly the petitioners were appointed agai nst non-sanctioned post as the orders of appointment referred to above have clea rly recorded that the petitioners were appointed against non-sanctioned post on purely temporary basis. They were appointed against a particular education polic y of the then BAC, but the Government of Assam never approved the same. In such a situation, there is no question of continuation in service and accordingly the ir services were dispensed with by the aforesaid order passed by the BTC authori ty. While filing the writ petition, the petitioners did not highlight anything in re spect of the said order dated 12.11.2004 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). The said order is also not under challenge in this proceeding. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly wr it petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioners are entitled to receive an y salary for the period they had worked under the respondents, the respondents m ay do the needful in this regard in accordance with law.