Brijesh Kumar, C.J. — This writ appeal arises out of judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.6.97 in Civil Rule No. 1787 of 1994. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant was appointed as honorary graduate teacher with effect from 15.5.86 on the request made by the management, in view of increase in the strength of students. A copy of the resolution passed by the Management has been annexed as Annexure I in the civil rule. It also appears that approval, as sought by the Committee of Management of the school, was granted by the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon. It is endorsed on the letter that the approval was granted vide Memo No. 4154 dated 4.8.88. This document is the sheet anchor of the petitioner-appellant, for the claim of regular appointment. It also appears that on the basis of its resolution the Committee of Management as its own, had given appointment to the petitioner-appellant, in purely honorary capacity with effect from 15.5.86 i.e. prior to the approval dated 4.8.1988. 4. So far as the Rules governing the appointment of graduate teacher are concerned, there is no dispute that there is no such provision for making appointment of honorary teachers by the Committee of Management, nor there is any provision for approval of such appointment. The recruitment is governed by Rule 7 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982. Rule 7 is quoted below: “7. The recruitment is governed by Rule 7 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982. Rule 7 is quoted below: “7. Direct recruitment (1) Direct recruitment shall be made on the basis of the recommendation made by the State Level Selection Board in the case of Post Graduate Teachers and the District Level Selection Board in all other cases in the manner hereinafter provided: (a) Before the end of each year the Appointing Authority shall make a schoolwise assessment of the likely number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment during the next year in different institutions and shall intimate the same to the Board together with the details of reservation of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or any other category as laid down by the Govt and shall furnish a list of the eligible serving teachers stating in details about the name of the institution where they are serving, the period of service rendered, grade of the service and the period spent therein and also the post for which they are eligible and all other particulars and information that may be considered necessary either by the Appointing Authority or by the Board. The Appointing Authority shall also furnish the relevant service records of such candidates to the Board. (b) The Appointing Authority shall simultaneously request the Board to recommend a list of candidates for direct recruitment in order of preference. (c) The Board shall make selection of candidates holding such test and interview and scrutiny of certificates, service records, if any, and other published articles etc, if any, published by the candidate, as may be considered necessary : Provided that while making the selection of candidates for recruitment to the vacancies in different institutions, in the post of Post Graduate Teacher, the Graduate teachers serving in the institution and having the requisite educational qualification and minimum 2 years continuous teaching experience as such teacher and the Junior Teachers serving in the institution and having the requisite educational qualification and minimum 3 years continuous teaching experience as such teacher and for the recruitment to the posts of Graduate Teacher, the Junior Teachers serving in the institution and having the requisite educational qualification and minimum 3 years continuous teaching experience as such teacher shall be given priority over other candidates. (d) The Board shall furnish to the appointing authority a list of candidates recommended by it in order of preference. The number of candidates in such a list may be approximately double the number of vacancies. (e) The Board shall simultaneously publish the list in such places and in such manner as the Board may consider fit and proper. (f) The list mentioned in clauses (d) and (e) of this rule shall remain valid for one year from the date of publication unless the Government extend the validity of the list for further period in the public interest in consultation with the Board. (g) The Board shall furnish separate lists for separate cadres or posts as may be required by the appointing authority and also state the name of the institution in case of serving teachers, for which the recommendation is made. (2) The following members shall constitute the District Level Selection Board: (i) An educationist of repute to be nominated by the Govt ...Chairman (ii) Inspector of Schools .... Member Secretary (iii) Three educationists to be .... Members, nominated by the Govt” 5. There is no dispute on the fact that the petitioner-appellant was not selected for direct recruitment as provided under Rule 7. The main thrust of the petitioner-appellant is that due to passage of long period of time as an honorary teacher he is entitled to be regularised. In this connection, it is submitted that some other teachers who were also appointed in the honorary capacity with the petitioner-appellant. It is also indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant that the petitioner-appellant had appeared in the selection for direct recruitment twice, but he never knew the result of the selection, that is to say, the petitioner-appellant is not selected through the selection process as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules. Much stress has been given on the fact that the approval given by the Inspector of Schools for appointment of the petitioner-appellant in honorary capacity on the request of the Committee of Management held a promise to the petitioner-appellant for regularisation in future. In this connection our attention has also been drawn to one of the Annexures in which the Inspector of Schools had once requested the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to sanction posts so that, the honorary teachers might not suffer. In this connection our attention has also been drawn to one of the Annexures in which the Inspector of Schools had once requested the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to sanction posts so that, the honorary teachers might not suffer. On this basis it is submitted that the petitioner-appellant had a legitimate expectation for regularisation. In this connection again it is admitted that there is no provision for regularisation as such. In fact if any honorary teacher was regularised that would obviously be without any provision under the law. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1993 (1) GLJ 278 (Smti Kunjalata Gogoi & 11 others vs. State of Assam & others). The matter related to honorary Assistant teachers in primary schools. In similar circumstances it appears that appointments on honorary basis were made by the Committees of Management. The Committees of Management again seems to have sought approval of the Inspector of Schools without there being any such provision. However, while considering the matter this Court observed that such cases of honorary teachers involve a human problem. The honorary teachers were driven to such a situation that they were ready to work in honorary capacity. Such teachers had put in long years of service. It was also considered that due to their age it might not be open for them to go in the open market and secure appointments. After highlighting the above factors this Court observed, 'This issue is of considerable difficulty to this Court in adopting any principle to spell out the rights of honorary teachers." From this observation it is clear that it could not be laid down as law that such teachers acquire any kind of right for being regularly appointed. In the above situation the Court, it appears, invited suggestions from the two learned Govt Advocates and the learned counsel for the petitioners. On the basis of suggestions put forth by the counsel of both sides it was found feasible to allow the benefit of regular appointment to such teachers who had put in 10 years of service, in so far as those teachers who had not completed 10 years of service it was observed, "there is nothing which can be stated to have accrued in their favour". From a bare perusal of the order passed by this Court as indicated above, it is difficult to hold that any rule of law had been laid down or any such ratio could be deduced from the decision that a right accrued to the honorary teachers for being appointed on regular basis. The decision was rendered on the basis of suggestions which were given by the counsel of both sides on being invited by the Court. May be it is something short of concession, but the basis of the decision was akin to that. No suggestion or concession is coming forth from the side of the counsel for the State in this case. In the above circumstances, in our view, it is difficult to order for regular appointment on the basis of decision cited above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has then vehemently urged that had the management not given the appointment in honorary capacity and had that not been approved by the Inspector of Schools the petitioner-appellant might not have accepted the appointment and could have competed for his recruitment in the open market. In this regard it may be indicated that the petitioner-appellant on his own showing and as submitted by the learned counsel, has twice appeared for being selected through selection process as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules though he had no information of having succeeded in the selection. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner-appellant to argue that in view of the promise held out to him, as claimed, he was deprived of competing with others in selection in accordance with the Rules. So far the question of human problem is concerned which has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, we would like to observe that the other side of the problem cannot be totally ignored. Every eligible person is entitled to a chance to be selected. If such chance is not made available to such persons in general, undoubtedly it will be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. By the device adopted, to by pass the statutory rules for direct recruitment, the right of all other eligible persons to be considered for appointment, cannot be done away with. They cannot be deprived of such opportunity to be candidates for regular appointments. By the device adopted, to by pass the statutory rules for direct recruitment, the right of all other eligible persons to be considered for appointment, cannot be done away with. They cannot be deprived of such opportunity to be candidates for regular appointments. If such deviation is allowed to be continued, opportunity for employment will be reduced to a selected few depriving majority of other eligible persons entitled for consideration on merit. As indicated above, as a matter of fact there is no such provision for appointment of honorary teachers, any provision for regularisation as well. Therefore, it is difficult to uphold the claim of the petitioner appellant only on the basis that the management allowed him to work in honorary capacity without backing of any provision under the law. 7. Lastly, the counsel for the petitioner-appellant has drawn our attention to Rule 15 of the Rules which provides for relaxation of operation of any of the rules, in case the Govt is satisfied that it will cause undue hardship in any particular case. It is submitted that the approval given by the Inspector of School should be treated as relaxation in operation of Rule 7 of the Rules. It is further submitted that a pragmatic approach, in interpreting such provision should be made. We, however, fail to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-appellant. The authority who has given approval for honorary appointment on the request of the management without any provision to that effect is not the authority to relax the operation of the Rules. It is the Govt which alone is empowered under Rule 15 to relax the operation of the Rules. Therefore, implied relaxation of Rule 7 cannot be inferred from the approval accorded by the Inspector of Schools for appointment of the petitioner-appellant on honorary basis. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 10 SCC 298 (Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs. State of Punjab & others). It has been held that such provision must get pragmatic construction so as to achieve effective implementation of a good policy of the Govt. The question of relaxation for a candidate, who was selected in the selection process but fell short of the requisite height, was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been held that such provision must get pragmatic construction so as to achieve effective implementation of a good policy of the Govt. The question of relaxation for a candidate, who was selected in the selection process but fell short of the requisite height, was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Govt exercised its power of relaxation in respect of that candidate on the basis of a policy formulated to show special consideration towards relatives of those who had either suffered due to terrorism or had faced terrorism boldly and contributed towards overcoming it. This seems to have been challenged, but the Court upheld the relaxation provide to the candidate. It was also held that it was possible to give relaxation to one single candidate if covered by the policy adopted by the Govt. In the present case, we are afraid, perhaps the petitioner-appellant never approached the State Govt for relaxation of Rule 7, nor the Govt seems to have exercised any such power under Rule 15, nor it is indicated that there was any policy decision under which the case of the petitioner-appellant may be covered for the purpose of relaxation. So far as the present case is concerned, we find, Rule 15 itself provides that the Govt can dispense with or relax the requirement of any of the rules if it is satisfied that operation of that rule may cause undue hardship in any particular case, which was a ground of challenge in the case of Sandeep Kumar Sharma (supra) where it was held that even if the discretion was exercised in favour of one individual candidate it was not offensive of Article 14. 8. In view of the discussions held above, we find it difficult to hold that there was any implied relaxation by the State Govt by virtue of approval given by the Inspector of Schools or honorary appointment of the petitioner-appellant on the asking, of the Committee of Management of the school without there being any such provisions or authority under the law, to grant approval. 9. We find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with observation that if the petitioner-appellant is so advised, it will be open for him to approach the State Government for invoking its power under Rule 15 of the Rules regarding relaxation in operation of the rules. No order as to costs.