WP(C) 3167/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. S Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H Rahman, learned Govt. Advocate who represent the respondents. 2. The petitioner who has been serving as a casual worker in the Kohora Soc ial Forestry Range, Bokakhat since 1987 in leave and substituted vacancies and t hereafter since 1996 in the Office of the Director, Kaziranga National Park (Res pondent No.4) as an LDA on officiating basis, has approached this Court seeking regularization of his service in a regular post under the office of the Responde nt No.4. 3. It is contended by Mr. S Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner that because of the long and sincere service rendered by the petitioner under the Dir ector of Kaziranga National Park, he has been commended by different Directors a nd considering the utility of his service, correspondence have been made by the Govt. Authorities to accommodate the petitioner on regular basis. Accordingly Mr . Sarma submits that the petitioner’s case be ordered to be considered for absor ption in an existing vacant post in the office of the Director. 4. Since the petitioner was not appointed through a regular recruitment pro cess, no enforceable legal right is seen on his claim for regularization of serv ice. However considering the long duration of temporary service and the commenda tions made, his claim be relegated to the Govt. Authorities for appropriate cons ideration. 5. It may be recorded that the petitioner has been serving in the Office of the Director, Kaziranga National Park since 1996 till date, albeit on the stren gth of an interim order passed by this Court on 22.5.2002 and therefore, it appe ars that there is need for regular engagement of an LDA cum Typist in the office of the respondent No.4. 6. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during the course of his temporary service, the petitioner has passed his H. S. Examination and ac quired computer and typing skills and his employer are also utilizing the servic e of the petitioner to do computer work in the office. 7. Considering the above and the legal position, this Court is not inclined to give any direction in favour of the petitioner. However if the petitioner fi les a representation, the respondents are directed to consider such representati on sympathetically and pass appropriate orders on the merit of the representatio n. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.