WA 219/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.UPADHYAY (Ranjan Gogoi, J) Heard Mr AS Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants. An order dated 11.6.2009 passed by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department directing the Director of Elementary Education to pay stipend of the appellants(writ petitioners) and pass appropriate orders to dis-continue their service was assailed in a proceeding registered and numbe red as WP(C) No. 2600/09 out of which this appeal has arisen. The order dated 11 .6.2009 passed by the departmental Secretary, it must be noticed, was in complia nce with another order dated 15.5.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) Nos. 6331/2003 and 8397/2004. Before the learned Single Judge hearing WP(C) No. 2660/09 it was contend ed on behalf of the appellants that there was a Cabinet decision by which the se rvices of the appellants were to be regularized as a matter of policy. However, the said Cabinet decision was not placed before the learned Single Judge hearing WP(C) Nos. 6331/2003 and 8397/2004. Taking note of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the appellants (writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 2660/09), the learne d Single Judge took the view that in that event the writ appellants should file a review petition as no fresh cause of action had arisen. Accordingly, the writ appellants prayed for liberty to withdraw the writ petition and file a review pe tition instead. Such liberty was granted by the learned Single Judge by the impu gned order dated 2.7.2009. However, instead of filing a review petition the appe llants have preferred this appeal. Mr AS Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that, in the meantime, consequential orders terminating their service have been issued and as review petition would stand barred by limitation, the appellants have preferred this appeal. On due consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the appell ants and having regard to the terms of the order dated 2.7.2009, we are of the v iew that this appeal should not be entertained by us. As the primary grievance o f the writ appellants is that the Cabinet decision for regularization of their s ervice was not placed before the learned Single Judge hearing WP(C) Nos. 6331/20 03 and 8397/2004, we are of the view that the writ appellants may approach the l earned Single Judge for review of the order dated 15.5.2009 passed in WP(C) Nos. 6331/2003 and 8397/2004. The writ appellants may also seek appropriate interim protection from the review Court by pointing out the relevant facts and circumst ances which in their comprehension would justify such interim intervention of th e review Court. The writ appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms.