WP(C) 4989/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr.HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Als o heard Mr. MR Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department. The petitioner, who is serving as a Lecturer in Economics at Neheru College, Pai lapool of Cachar District, is aggrieved by the delay in the Government’s decisio n for extending his probation till 2011 when he expects the completion of his Ph . D. It may be recorded that the petitioner was adjusted against a regular retir ement vacancy in the College by an order dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure-1) on conditi on that he obtains the requisite qualification of NET/SLET/M.Phil/Ph.D within tw o years from the date of formal approval failing which, his services was to be d iscontinued, as per the Government Office Memorandum No. B (2) H.97/2003/98 date d 17.7.2004. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the petitioner had thereafter registered f or a Ph. D with the Assam University and has made substantial progress in his re search work and although he could not secure the Ph. D qualification within the time prescribed (by May, 1009), he deserves extension of his probation, to enabl e him to obtain the requisite qualification. Mr. MR Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department submits tha t a counter affidavit has already been filed by the Government taking the stand that extension of further time is not envisaged as the petitioner was given a sp ecial benefit despite lacking qualification, of being adjusted against a regular vacancy only on the condition that he obtains the requisite qualification withi n two years i.e. by 25.5.2009. He further submits that the petitioner had the op tion to obtain any of the other less time consuming qualifications like NET/SLET instead of pursuing a Ph. D degree, which requires relatively longer time. Mr. Pathak also points out that the special concession envisaged by Office Memorandu m dated 17.7.2004 cannot be extended, as it will mean that a large number of sim ilar claims being made by non-qualified Lecturers. However, Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury refers to the communication dated 20.8.2010 of the Director of Higher Education to contend that recommendation for extension of th e probation period has been made by the Director of Higher Education and Governm ent has also considered the cases of similarly situated Lecturers of Gorgaon Col lege, Simaluguri, Morigaon College, Morigaon. Mr. Choudhury also refers to a cas e of a Lecturer in Department of Manipuri of his own College i.e. Neheru College , Pailapool. Considering that the petitioner was adjusted in pursuant to a policy decision of the Government, this Court does not find any justification to pass orders on hi s prayer for extension of probation period. The relaxation of the terms in this Court’s view can be considered only by the Government, which framed the policy, and in this circumstances, the Court is disinclined to pass any order on the mer it of the petitioner’s claim. However, since a recommendation has been made by the Director of Higher Educatio n in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has cited a few instances where the Government has exercised discretion in favour of other Lecturers, an order can be passed in this writ petition permitting the petitioner to make a represen tation to the Government for considering the prayer for extension of his probati on period. If such a representation is filed, the Government should consider and dispose of the representation on merit. It is ordered accordingly. The case is disposed of in terms of the above directions.