WP(C) 1155/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :: O R A L :: Heard Mr. KK Mahanta, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr . AD Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the responde nts. 2. With the help of this writ application, under Article 226 of the Constit ution of India, the petitioner has sought for issuance of appropriate writ(s) co mmanding the respondents to either regularise the service of the petitioner, as Assistant Teacher, or permanently absorb him in a post of Assistant Teacher in H akama MN ME School, Bilasipara. 3. The writ petition unfolds with statement from the writ petitioner that h e got an opportunity to serve as Assistant Teacher, when he was appointed, on 16 -11-1994, in Hakama MN ME School, Bilasipara, on ad hoc basis, for three months or until selected by Advisory Board, Bilasipara. 4. Before proceeding further, it is of immense importance to note, that the petitioner does not claim that he came to be appointed, on ad hoc basis, follow ing any selection process. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner was wholly ar bitrary and against the Constitutional scheme of public employment inasmuch as A rticle 14 and 16 warrant the State to allow all eligible persons to participate in every selection process before any appointment is made. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner’s letter of appointment, dated 16-11-1 994, makes it clear that the petitioner’s appointment was, on ad hoc basis, for three months, the appointment having been made by the District Elementary Office r, Dhubri. The petitioner claims that his appointment was approved by the Adviso ry Board. A copy of the resolution of the Advisory Board is claimed to have been annexed to the writ petition. This resolution, being of great significance, is reproduced below: The appointment of Sri Tapan Kr. Chakravorty as Assistant Teacher in Hakama ME School vide order issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, under Mem o No. EED-58/Part-II/94/6421-26, dated 16-11-94, is approved in todays’ meeting. 6. A bare reading of the resolution reveals that what had been approved by the Advisory Board was the order of appointment, dated 16-11-1994, meaning there by that it was the petitioner’s ad hoc appointment for three moths, issued under the letter, dated 16-11-1994, by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhu bri, which was approved by the Advisory Board. In short, thus, the petitioner’s ad hoc appointment, made on 16-11-1994, stood, at best, approved by the Advisory Board. Since thereafter, neither there has been any further extension of the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner nor has there been any regular appointment of the petitioner. 7. In fact, the petitioner has placed on record an application made by him, addressed to the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri, wherein he has clearly stated that his term of ad hoc appointment would be over on 15-08-1995 a nd he prayed for further extension of his service by a period of three months. T his application, made by the petitioner himself, makes it clear that the petitio ner had known that even when he made the application for extension of his engage ment that his appointment was inherently ad hoc in nature and was not against an y sanctioned permanent post and that his was not a regular appointment. The peti tioner basically claims regularisation of his service on the ground that he had been working, as Assistant Teacher, in the said school and the inspection conduc ted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, revealed that the petitioner was found t o have been working as Assistant Teacher in the said school. Admittedly, the pet itioner had not been appointed on permanent basis. From the pleadings in the wri t petition and the materials on record, it becomes clear that the petitioner has been working, in the said school, without any order of appointment or direction . 8. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s ad hoc appointment was withou t any selection process and till today, the petitioner has not appeared in any s election process, no mandamus can be issued commanding the respondents to either appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher or regularise his service. There is , admittedly, a set of Rules, namely, Assam Elementary Education (Provincializat ion) Rules, 1977, which embody a complete procedure for selection and appointmen t of Assistant Teachers. 9. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not participated in any sele ction process held in terms of the relevant rules, the respondents cannot be dir ected to regularise the petitioner’s service merely because the petitioner has b een working, as Assistant Teacher, in the said school, particularly, when the pe titioner has not revealed, in the writ petition as, to who is or was the person, who had ordered him to work in the said school. The mere fact, therefore, that the petitioner has been teaching in the said school, if what the petitioner clai ms is true, it would not cloth the petitioner with any right to claim regularisa tion of his service and/or claim appointment as Assistant Teacher against any sa nctioned vacant post. 10. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court do es not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case warranting in voking of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 so as to command the respo ndents to either regularise the service of the petitioner or appoint him, agains t any sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher. 11. This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stan d disposed of. 12. No order as to costs.