WP(C) 6617/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr MK Boro, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr BJ Ghosh, le arned State counsel. The petitioner pursuing his cause for being accommodated against any pos t in the State service is back to this Court with the grievance that inspite of the observations made by this Court in its order dated 3.9.2002 passed in WP(C) No. 5639/2000 leaving it optional for the concerned State respondents to conside r his representation to the above effect have not taken any decision thereon. Th e petitioner was, along with others, appointed as Assistant Planning Officer/ As sistant Research Officer on ad-hoc basis under Rule 3(i) of the Assam Public Ser vice (Ad-hoc) Appointment Rules, 1986 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’th e Rules’) with the rider that they would be required to subject themselves to a selection process to be conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (for sh ort, hereinafter referred to as ’the Commission’). The appointment was further s ubject to the condition that in case they fail to qualify in the said process th eir services would be liable to be terminated. The petitioner along with others was so terminated on 18.3.91 and being aggrieved thereby he approached this Cour t with WP(C) No. 1990/91. The said writ proceeding was disposed of by this Court by its order dated 23.12.99 requiring the respondents therein to consider his c ase for regularisation in the post of Assistant Planning Officer. The concerned authority, however, by the order dated 18.9.2000 did not consider his case favou rably principally on the ground that he could not qualify in the competitive exa mination conducted therefor by the Commission. This order was assailed again by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5639/2000 which was disposed on 3.9.2002 without int erfering with the order challenged. He was, however, left with the liberty to su bmit representation before the State Government expressing his willingness to ge t accommodated in a post lower in rank than the one to which he had been initial ly appointed. The petitioner has submitted his representation. However, as the s ame remains undisposed as on date, he seeks judicial intervention for redress. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents appended to the writ petition, this Court finds no substance in the grievance of the petitioner. Having regard to the bac kground of the proceedings referred to hereinabove, at this distant point of tim e this Court does not find any merit in the instant petition. The petitioner had been appointed as Assistant Planning Officer on ad-hoc basis under the responde nts and admittedly he failed to qualify himself in the selection process conduct ed by the Commission in that regard. His initial induction was subject to the co ndition that he would be required to prove himself suitable through the said pro cess. The order dated 3.9.2002 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5639/2000 does not recognize any right of his to the said post or any other post in the State s ervice. The tone and tenor of the operative directions contained in the said ord er also, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not vest with him semblan ce of any right in that regard. In the above view of the matter, this petition lacks in merit and, hence , dismissed.