WP(C) 5674/2000 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE D. BISWAS, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) Heard Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and al so Ms. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in the stream of Math ematics against a non-sanctioned post in Lanka Mahavidyalaya, Lanka, Nagaon in p ursuance of an advertisement issued and published in the issue of the Sentinel d ated 22nd August, 1998. The appointment was made on ad-hoc basis by the order da ted 15th February, 1999 when the College itself was a private college. The said College was taken over under Deficit Grant-in-Grant System by the State Governme nt by the order dated 26.2.1999. The resolution appointing the petitioner and ot hers was also approved by the Director of Higher Education by the order communic ated vide letter dated 21.8.2000. In pursuance of the approval accorded by the D irector, the Principal-in-Charge by the order dated 22.8.2000 appointed afresh t he petitioner as Lecturer in Mathematics against a sanctioned post in the scale of pay of Rs.8000 - 13,500/-. The appointment was made subject to the condition that the petitioner should acquire the NET/SLET and till such clearance he would be treated as on probation and liable to be discharged if he fails to obtain th e clearance. It was further stipulated that the petitioner would draw the minimu m of the scale of Rs.8000/- per month during the aforesaid period of probation. The order passed by the Principal was also approved by the Director of Higher Ed ucation vide order communicated vide letter dated 29.8.2000. Thereafter, the Dir ector by the letter dated 12th September, 2000 (Annexure-D to the affidavit-in-o pposition) informed the Principal of the College that the approval was accorded through oversight and, hence, it was withdrawn. Further direction was also given not to make any payment to the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved by this order d ated 12th September, 2000, the petitioner filed this petition praying for approp riate direction for his continuance in service. This Court while issuing notice of motion by the order dated 29.9.2000 s tayed the operation of the order. On the strength of this interim direction, it is submitted by Mr. Mahanta, the petitioner is continuing in service. The consequence of withdrawal of the approval earlier accorded by the Di rector is that the writ petitioner would be out of service. It is on this appreh ension he has approached this Court. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel submitt ed a copy of the office memorandum dated 17th July, 2004 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education Department prescribing guidelines f or adjustment/absorption of ad-hoc Lecturer who were appointed in different Coll eges in the State of Assam prior to the Colleges were brought under Deficit-in-G rant System. Mr. Mahanta submitted that the case of the petitioner may be referr ed to the respondent authority for consideration of his case in terms of the sai d office memorandum. At this point, Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the Education Department submitted that the petitioner cannot be adjusted against a sanctioned vacancy si nce he has not qualified in the NET/SLET examination. But the memorandum provide s that the teachers working under non-sanctioned post will be eligible for adjus tment against vacant post subject to their qualifying in the NET/SLET within two years if they do not possess already. It further provides that in case of not q ualifying within six months in the NET/SLET examination, their services would be discontinued. Till they acquire the qualification prescribed within the stipula ted period, they would only be entitled to basic pay for the services rendered. In view of the aforesaid provisions in the office memorandum, I do not f ind any reason as to why petitioner’s case will not be considered as suggested by Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respo ndent authority to examine the claim of the writ petitioner in terms of the offi ce memorandum dated 17th July, 2004 and to pass appropriate orders as may be con sidered expedient in the given circumstances of the case and in accordance with the provisions of the office memorandum. Needless to say, the petitioner will co ntinue in service till the exercise is completed. No costs.