WP(C) 2411/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner claiming to be a selected candidate for the post of LDA-cum-Typist, has prayed for regularization of her casual service. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as a Grade-III em ployee in the Office of the CDPO, Demow ICDS Project at a consolidated pay of Rs . 900/- per month. While she was continuing in her said service, she appeared in a selection conducted by the respondents for few posts of LDA-cum-Typist. Accor ding to the petitioner, she was selected in the said selection and thus, conside ring her past service and experience, she is entitled to get regularization of h er service. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating that since th e merit position obtained by the petitioner was at Sl. No. 11 as against the ava ilable vacancy of 6 (six), she could not be appointed. As regard the plea of reg ularization of service, it has been stated that the petitioner cannot claim auto matic regularization of her service de hors the recruitment rules. The aforesaid stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit has not been denied by the petitioner by filling any affidavit-in-reply. If the petition er, although, was selected but did not come within the zone of consideration bei ng her merit position at Sl. No. 11 as against six vacancies, this Court exercis ing writ jurisdiction cannot issue any mandamus to the respondents to appoint th e petitioner on regular basis. Irrespective of inability to issue any such direc tion, the respondents will be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for continuation in service. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, without h owever, any order as to costs.