WP(C) 4712/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr A Mannaf, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr G Soren, the le arned State counsel appearing for the State respondents. In my opinion, this writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismi ssed. The grievances of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is th at his father, namely, Tabibur Rahman along with others were doing patrolling du ty on 04.10.2006 at about 10:30/11:00 PM. On the instruction of the Officer-in-C harge, Rangia Police Station some dacoits have entered the village, whereupon, h is father and some others who were on duty rushed to that place where operation was going on. The Police personnel also started arriving. The Police started que stioning and cross questioning and in that state of confusion, the Police who ca me later on started firing upon the innocent public. This resulted in the death of the father of the petitioner and grievous injuries on some other persons. The mother of the petitioner, Smti. Noor Banu Begum lodged an FIR before the Rangia Police Station, which was registered as Rangia PS Case No. 453/2006, under Sect ion 326/304 IPC and was duly investigated. On the following day, i.e. 05.10.2006 , the respondent authorities including the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati came to their village and made necessary enquiry. The State Govt. ultimately pa y the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the family of the petitioner by way of ex-gratia g rant. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwa hati as well as other officials, when visited the village, agreed to the demand of the public of the locality for providing a Govt. job to the petitioner beside s the ex-gratia grant. The petitioner was accordingly engaged as Grade-IV employ ee in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rangia as Muster Roll Wo rker, which was joined by him on 11.10.2006. Since then, the petitioner has been continued in that post with a regular salary @ Rs.1800/- PM. Expecting the regu larization of his service, several representations were filed before the respond ent authorities, but to no effect. It was under the aforesaid circumstances, thi s writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for regularizing his service. T he writ petition is opposed by the State respondents by filing their affidavit-i n-opposition. There is no dispute at the Bar that the petitioner was never appoi nted in accordance with the recognized recruitment procedure under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no promise or commitment was ever made by the respondent aut horities to give regular employment to the petitioner or to regularize his servi ce. If that is so, I do not think how the relief claimed by him can be granted b y this Court. The petitioner has no right for regularisation of his service. No case has been made out by the petitioner for his regular employment or for regul arizing his service. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to approach th e competent authority to seek regular employment. As for this writ petition, there is no merit and is accordingly dismisse d, but by directing the parties to bear their respective costs.