WP(C) 3574/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA Amitava Roy, J The petitioner, who claims to be presently engaged as a maunal worker and discha rging the duties of an office peon in the establishment of the Chief Judicial Ma gistrate, Bongaigaon is before this Court principally, seeking preemption of the termination of his services or discharge from his said assignment. We have heard Mr. P.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. D eka, learned State counsel and Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati H igh Court for Respondent No.2. The petitioner’s pleaded version is that he was initially appointed as a Grade-I V (peon) on temporary basis in the year 1993 and was attached to the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar. After he continued as such in this capacity for about 10 years, his services were terminated on 21.10.2004. He was engaged agai n on 02.03.2007 as a contingency manual worker at the rate of Rs.60/- per day wi th effect from that date. His monthly wage was enhanced from time to time. In between, he was discharged again on 21.04.2010 with effect from 01.05.2010. H e was reengaged on 18.05.2010 as a Grade-IV (peon) until further order(s). The petitioner has asserted that though, he has till date been discharging his dutie s without any blemish, he apprehends that his services may again be terminated. Whereas, Mr. Talukdar while reiterating the above has sought for the interventio n of this Court for the aforementioned relief, Mr. Dey has urged that having reg ard to his admitted temporary nature of appointment he is not entitled to any re dress from this Court. Mr. Talukdar, however to reinforce his plea has laid rel iance on the judgment and order dated 09.04.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.5003/2002 (Phukan Chandra Kalita -Vs- State of Assam & O rs.). We have considered the materials on record as well as the arguments made. That t he engagement of the petitioner in the capacity as mentioned hereinabove had bee n temporary basis is more than apparent. Admittedly, he had been terminated on 2 8.01.2004 to be reengaged on 02.03.2007. There is visibly a break for more than three years at that phase. Though, he was reengaged on 02.03.2007 as a conting ency manual worker he was discharged again w.e.f. 01.05.2010 to be brought back on 18.05.2010. Resultantly, another break had intervened. Be that as it may, h e asserts to be continuing as an office peon, as on date, in the establishment o f the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon. This Court in Phukan Chandra Kalita - Vs- State of Assam & Ors. while dealing w ith a similar grievance vis-à-vis serving and/or retrenched Grade-IV employees w orking as a peons and attached to several judicial officers in the state of Assa m had disposed of the proceeding with the following directions: (A) That the respondent authorities shall take up immediate necessary steps for recruitment and appointment of the attached peons’ in the District and Sub-Divi sional judicial establishments by holding regular process of recruitment. (B) Until further such recruitment process is carried out in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules, the petitioners, who are still in service, shall no t be terminated or dismissed from services, arbitrarily without resorting to due process of law. (C) It is made clear that while undertaking the process of recruitment of attach ed peons, the petitioners who are still working, and the petitioners who have be en terminated from service, shall be given due weight-age for their past service and experience, and their overages shall also be condoned to enable them to par ticipate in the selection process. A plain reading of the text of the quote demonstrates, in clear terms that the d irections were confined to the petitioner’s in that writ petition. Their Lordshi ps as we comprehend did not intend a general application of the said directions as a whole to all similarly situated persons. To state the minimum, even otherwi se, according to us, generalization of these directions would not be in the inte rest of administrative excellence, having regard to the fact that the service re nderable in the said post is relatable to a public office. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to import, en masse the aforeme ntioned directions to the facts of the present case. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had started rendering his services in the above capacity since the year 1993 and has claimed that he is at present engage d as Grade-IV (peon) in the establishment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bong aigaon, we on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances dispose of the instant petition with the following directions: (1) The respondent No.2 would take immediate steps for recruitment and appoi ntment to the regular Grade-IV posts in his establishment lying vacant in terms of the relevant recruitment rules; (2) In view of the service profile of the petitioner as narrated in the writ petition, if he is otherwise eligible to participate in the selection process t o follow, the appointing authority/selection committee would accord weight-age f or his past services and experience while assessing the comparative suitability of the candidates for appointment; (3) Vis-à-vis the aspect of continuation of the petitioner in his present as signment or otherwise we leave it to the discretion of the appointing authority to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and as warranted by the e xigencies of service. In absence of any tangible material on record in support of the apprehension ex pressed by the petitioner, we are not inclined to pass any interim relief for hi s continuation in service in the present post. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.