WP(C) 4724/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr . B.D. Goswami and Mr. S. Barthakur, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 6. I have also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Depar tment. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner a temporary lecturer of A ssamese Department in the J.B.S.H. College, Bokakhat in the district of Golaghat has assailed the legality and validity of the Annexure-10 advertisement publish ed in the issue of Dainik Janambhumi dated 27.8.2006. By the said advertisemen t, applications were invited from the candidates having UGC norms with NET/SLET for filling up the post of lecturer in Assamese (Group-B). The post has earmarke d for reserved category candidates ST(P). 3. According to the petitioner, he having been appointed in the college as lecturer in the department of Assamese on temporary basis by order dated 21.7.20 05 and his such service having been extended from time to time, he is entitled t o the benefits envisaged in Annexure-9 Office Memorandum dated 17.7.2004. By the said memorandum, issued by the Government of Assam in the Education (Higher) De partment certain guidelines have been issued towards regularization of the servi ces of the lecturers working against non-sanctioned post. One of the criteria fo r regularization is that the lecturer in question must be appointed against the non-sanctioned post following the due procedure of selection as per the UGC norm s. 4. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was appoint ed without following the due procedure as laid down in UGC guidelines. This aspe ct of the matter has been highlighted in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by th e Director of Higher Education, Assam to which there is no denial on the part of the petitioner. 5. Once it is found that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the a foresaid Office Memorandum dated 17.7.2004, next question which falls for consid eration of this Court is as to whether there is violation in earmarking the post for ST(P) candidates. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No . 4 i.e. the Director of Higher Education, the findings relating to filling up o f posts in the college have been highlighted. As per the said findings, there is only one ST(P) lecturer in the college. On the other hand, it is the plea of th e petitioner that there were already two ST(P) lecturers in the Department of As samese. 6. The reservation policy will have to be followed taking the college to be one unit comprising of all the Departments. It has not been shown that by earma rking the post for ST(P) candidates, there has been excessive reservation. The p osition reflected in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Director of Higher Education on the basis of the information furnished to him cannot be doubted. 7. Apart from the above, there is another aspect of the matter, which Mr. B .D. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent has highlighted. According to hi m, the petitioner being not eligible to apply for the post, he has no locus stan di to question the validity of the advertisement. As noticed above, as per the r equirement of the advertisement, the candidates must have NET/SLET qualification to be eligible to offer candidature. Admittedly at the time of issuance of the advertisement and on the last date of submission of application, the petitioner did not have NET/SLET qualification to his credit. On the other hand, the respon dent is qualified in NET/SLET. 8. It is submitted that because of pendency of the present writ proceeding, the required prior approval of the Director of Higher Education in the matter o f appointment of lecturer pursuant to the impugned advertisement has not been ac corded. There is no stay order operating in the writ proceeding. It is submitted that pursuant to the impugned advertisement, the authority has conducted the se lection and now the matter is pending before the Director of Higher Education fo r his prior approval. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Acco rdingly, it is dismissed. The Director of Higher Education shall now proceed wit h the matter in accordance with the law. 10. With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.