JUDGMENT A. Hazarika, J. 1. By this common judgment, the WP(C) No. 2018/2001 and 2019/2001 are being disposed of as they pose a common question of law. 2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the orders dated 20th November, 2000 and 5th January, 2001 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 308/99 and 303/99 respectively whereby the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicants to regularise their services as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of passing of the judgments. 3. We have heard Mr. P. Bhowmick, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The respondent in WP(C) No. 2018/2001 was appointed as Project Assistant on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500 per month by the order dated 25th November, 1983 in the Regional Research Laboratory, Jorhat, Assam while the respondent in WP(C) No. 2019/2001 was appointed as Project Assistant on a consolidated pay of Rs. 400 per month vide order dated 14th September, 1984. The tenure of appointment of both the respondents was for a period of 8 months only. The services of the respondent in WP(C) No. 2018/2001 were extended from time to time and he continued as such till 1,7.1990. Thereafter, no extension was given to him. The services of the latter were not extended beyond the initial period of 8 months. Being aggrieved, they had preferred Title Suits before the learned Civil Court for ventilating their grievances. The learned Court below held that it is not appropriate forum. Thereafter, they had approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati by way of filing the aforesaid Original Applications. 5. In the case at hand, we have seen a Scheme, namely, Merit and Normal Assessment Scheme (For short, MANAS) formulated by the authority. On expiry of this Scheme, it was reintroduced on 4.10.1990 and again introduced in the year 1992. As per this Scheme, persons who have rendered three years continuous service in a scheme should be absorbed either against existing regular vacancies in identical posts or by creating additional posts (by following prescribed procedure) if the work load so demands. 6. It is the case of the respondents that the services of similarly situated persons were regularised as per this Scheme, by Mr. 6. It is the case of the respondents that the services of similarly situated persons were regularised as per this Scheme, by Mr. Bhowmik, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that persons similarly situated were not regularised as submitted by the respondents. Mr. Bhowmick further submitted that they are also not covered by the aforesaid Scheme. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal only directed the authority to consider the case of the applicants for regularisation in service, but the same is not a direction to the authority for regularisation. The authority after receipt of the order, should have passed a reasoned order whether the respondents are covered by the aforesaid Scheme or not. 8. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, we should not interfere with the orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati in OA Nos. 308/99 and 303/99 and, accordingly, we dismiss both the writ petitions. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.