Heard Mr.N.Jotendro, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Modhuchandra, learned GA for the respondent nos.1 and 2. [2] In the course of hearing, Mr.N.Jotendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that because of the settled position of law regarding regularization of the ad hoc/casual employees under the decision of the Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Uma Devi Vs Secretary State of Karnataka: (2006) 4 SCC 1 : AIR 2006 SC 1806 , the petitioner is not seeking the prayer for direction to the respondents for regularizing their appointment on casual basis. But the only prayer made in the present writ petition is that their cases may be considered under the office memorandum of the Government of Manipur being No.1/21/83-OM dated 29th June, 1983 (Annexure-A/5 to the rejoinder affidavit) under which the Government of Manipur issued guidelines for selection of candidates for appointing in the class IV posts (excluding police personnel). Under the said guideline issued under the office memorandum dated 29.6.1983, the Government had decided for giving preference to the candidates provided they are within the prescribed cases and they are in possession of the requisite qualification prescribed for the post and their names are registered with the Employment Exchange and belong to the locality, (excluding police personnel) and they have donated the land/building for the school/dispensaries/hospitals etc. [3] In the present case, it is stated that the chief of the petitioners' village i.e. Tingkai Khunou Village had entered into an agreement dated 1.2.1998 between one Project Officer on behalf of the Director, Veterinary & Animal Husbandry, Government of Manipur. For easy reference, the said agreement dated 1.2.1998 is quoted hereunder: “ On negotiation with the Director (Veterinary) held today dated 1.2.1981 I shree Kampu, Village Chief of Tingkai Khunou Village, Senapati District agree to donte 300 (three hundred) acres of land at the Leishengunb Hill (Lekinthabi) area which is surrounded on the- North :By the Forest Plantation area o Tingkai Khunou; South :By Aimol village boundary; West :By the paddy field of Mr.Janglet Haokip, s/o Honnet; Janglal Haokip, s/o Chungnoh and Henpao S/o (Late) Hangken of Thingai Khunou; East :By the valley paddy field of Irengbam Village (Bishnupur District) for the establishment of the Regional Pony Development Project (The land donated free of cost under the terms and conditions). 1. All Grade IV employees of the proposed farm will be appointed from the said village. 1. All Grade IV employees of the proposed farm will be appointed from the said village. 2. All Grade III employees excepting the technical posts will be appointed from the said village if qualified candidate are available in the village. 3. Other facilities which may be given will be extended to them (villagers). All responsibilities of the land will be borne by me (Chief). 4. On the day of inauguration possible posts as at (1) and (2) will be appointed as permitted by Rule.” [4] The learned GA, Mr.A Modhuchandra, appearing for the respondents submits that the Project officer may not have the jurisdiction to enter into such agreement dated 1.2.1998. But it is a fact that the Chief of the Tingkai Khunou Village, Senapati, Manipur, i.e. the petitioners' village had donated a piece of village land measuring about 300 acres mentioned in the said agreement dated 1.2.1998. [5] Taking into consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as perusal of the record of the present writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the office memorandum dated 29.6.1983 and also keeping in view of the said agreement dated 1.2.1998, as and when DPC is held for the posts of Grade-IV in the Directorate of Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Services, Government of Manipur. To the extent mentioned above, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.