WP(C) 1813/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA JUDGMENT AND ORDER Heard Mr. I Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department and Mr . BN Gogoi, learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that after passing her BA examination in the year 1990, she also obtained diploma in type writing both in English and Assamese. In the year 1991 she was appointed as Work-charged Khalasi (Typist) i n the scale of pay of Rs.600/- per month for a period of three (3) months vide o rder dated 07.11.1991 issued by the Executive Engineer, Guwahati East E & D divi sion, which was subsequently extended by the authorities from time to time. Howe ver, for a brief period she was appointed to officiate as Tracer in the maternit y leave vacancy as well as earned leave vacancy of Smti Kusum Talukdar in the sc ale of pay of Rs.1065/- to Rs.2095/- per month. Subsequently, her duty was shift ed to the office of the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Flood Control Dep artment, (now re-named as Water Resources Department) as Work-charged Khalasi (T ypist) vide order dated 12.03.1997 issued by the respondent No. 4. At present sh e has been working in the Directorate of Water Resources, Design. It has also be en contended that in the year 2005 many work-charged employees were regularised by the respondents, who were junior to her, but her case was ignored for such re gularisation. Hence, she filed a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No. 5769/05 and this Court vide order dated 12.8.2005 directed the respondent author ities to consider her case alongwith similarly situated persons. However, nothin g was done by the respondents except some paper communications. 3. Further case of the petitioner is that a post of Tracer has been sanctio ned in the Water Resources Department (Director, Design). She has also applied f or the said post, but the respondent No.2 has sent his requisition to the Employ ment Exchange, Guwahati to furnish the names of candidates for filling up the po st of Tracer. Petitioner’s name also has been enrolled in the Employment Exchang e as a departmental candidate. The petitioner has recently come to know that the candidate to be appointed has already been decided by the authorities for filli ng up the post of Tracer on extraneous consideration and sending of such requisi tion is nothing but an eyewash only. According to her while selecting candidate for the post of Tracer, the authorities should give adequate weightage to her lo ng experience in the department. Hence, the instant writ petition with a prayer for a direction to the authority to regularise the service of the petitioner in the post of Tracer or to give due weightage to the petitioner’s past service exp erience with effect from 7.11.1991, while selecting candidate for filling up the post of Tracer. 4. From the pleadings set forth in the writ petition, it is not discernable whether the writ petitioner is eligible to apply for the post of Tracer or she has fulfilled her eligibility criteria for appointment in the said post, as per Rules, if any. Further, except a general statement of selection of candidate on extraneous and political consideration no material could be provided by the peti tioner to substantiate her claim. Hence, this Court is not inclined to go into t his aspect of the matter. However, regarding the prayer made in the petition, th is Court is of the view that if the selection process and appointment to the pos t of Tracer under the respondent department is not already over, the respondent authorities shall consider the past experience of the petitioner while selecting candidates to fill up the aforementioned post of Tracer, provided the writ peti tioner fulfills the eligibility criteria under the Rules/guidelines, if any, fol lowed by the department for such appointment and such exercise shall be complete d by the respondents within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of this ju dgement. 5. Although no prayer has been made by the petitioner for regularisation of her service in the post of Khalasi (Typist) except a statement that she had to approach this Court earlier praying for regularisation of her service but till d ate, her service has not been regularised, considering her past long experience as Work-charged Khalasi (Typist) under the respondent department, the Court deem s it just and proper to direct that while considering the cases of similarly sit uated Work-charged Khalasi casual, fixed pay employee etc. for regularisation pu rsuant to the direction issued in the judgment and order passed today in WP(C) N o.6224/05 (Pulin Kr. Sarma & ors. -Vs- State of Assam & ors.) and WP(C) No.5876/ 05 (Md. Jamal Hussain & ors. -Vs- State of Assam & ors.), the case of the writ p etitioner shall also be taken up for consideration by the respondents for regula risation of her service in the post of Khalasi (Typist). 6. Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is d isposed of. No costs.