In this case notice of motion was issued on 21.12.94 and this matter was disposed of finally at the admission stage itself as agreed by learned counsel of both the sides. 2. I have heard Shri SN Medhi, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri KC Mahanta, learned Advocate for the respondents. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Government, no record has been produced. 3. This application has been filed for the enforcement of the judgment and order dated 13.5.93 passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 1935 of 1991 whereby the respondents were directed to consider the regularisation of the service of the petitioner after giving them chance of being considered by APSC afresh within one year from the date of judgment and to pass appropriate order on the basis of the recommendation of the Assam Public Service Commission with a further order for continuance of the petitioner in service in the meantime. The order of this Court dated 13.5.93, Annexure III to the writ application is quoted below : "Petitioners' case is that they were appointed on ad-hoc basis as Fishery Extension Officer after being selected by the DPC initially for a period of 4 (four) months and their services were extended from time to time. The petitioners also underwent training course after appointment. In January, 1989 the APSC made advertisement inviting applications for filling up the posts of Fishery 'Extension Officer/Assistant Fishery Information Officer on regular basis and in response thereto petitioners made applications offering their candidates before the APSC. The APSC after holding a selection test published the Selection List on 28.11.90 but the names of the petitioners did not find place in the said Select List although the petitioners continued to work: Facing the order of termination from service, petitioners have approached this Court in this writ petition. While issuing Rule this Court passed ad-interim order directing the respondents not to oust the petitioners from services, till disposal of the writ petitions. The petitioners have rendered about 5 years service. 2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Govt. While issuing Rule this Court passed ad-interim order directing the respondents not to oust the petitioners from services, till disposal of the writ petitions. The petitioners have rendered about 5 years service. 2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Govt. Advocate, and also taking into consideration of the hardships faced by the petitioners, I direct that the respondents to consider regularisation of service of the petitioners after giving them chance of being considered by APSC afresh within a period of one year from today and on the basis of the recommendation of the APSC the respondents may pass appropriate order. Till the petitioners' case are not considered by the APSC afresh, they shall be allowed to continue in service." 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 16.11.94 to consider his case i.e. Annexure IV to the writ application. That is quoted below: xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 5. But nothing has been done. Hence, this writ application. 6. In 1993 (3) SCJ 452 (Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde & another vs. State of Maharastra & others) wherein it has been pointed out as follows : "Respect for law is one of the cardinal principles for an effective operation of the Constitution, law and the popular Government. The faith of the people is one source and succour to invigorate justice interwined with the efficacy of law. The principle of justice is ingrained in our concience and though ours is a nacent democracy which has now taken deep roots in our ethos of adjudication be it judicial quasi judicial or administrative as hallmark, the faith of the people in the efficacy of judicial process would be disillusioned, if the parties are permitted to abuse its process and allowed to go scot free. It is but the primary duty and highest responsibility of the Court to correct such order at the earliest and restore the confidence of the litigant public, in the purity of fountain of justice, remove stains on the efficacy of judicial adjudication and respect for rule of law, lest people would lose faith in the Courts and take recourse to extra constitutional remedies which is a deathknell to the rule of law." 7. In this case, there was an order to do certain things in a certain manner by this Court. In this case, there was an order to do certain things in a certain manner by this Court. That order may be right or wrong but the respondents do not have the right to flout it or take resort to a policy of 'deep slumber'. That is what appears to have been done in this particular case. 8. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with the direction that the earlier order passed by this Court shall be complied with within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. It is needless to say that the Commissioner is not bound to regularise the service of the petitioner but may take appropriate action in accordance with the rules and laws. 10. This disposes of the writ application.