JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. I have heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, who appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and 4. 2. The facts, relevant for this writ petition, may in brief, be set out thus : Pursuant to an advertisement, inviting application for appointment to a non-sanctioned post of lecturer, in Economics, in Commerce Stream, in Dispur College, the petitioner, who has requisite qualifications and UGC norms, applied. Following the procedure for selection, which included interview, the petitioner was appointed to the said post of lecturer, in Economics, in Commerce Stream, the said post being, as already indicated, a non-sanctioned post. The relevant portion of the letter of appointed reads as under: Sub appointment as lecturer in Commerce Stream, Dispur College, Guwahati-5. Sir, With reference to your application and subsequent interview for the post of lecturer in Economics, in Commerce Stream (Non-sanction) of Dispur College, I have the pleasure to inform you that you been appointed by the GB of Dispur college in the said post at a fixed pay of Rs. 2,100/- (Rupees two thousand one hundred only) pm. The appointment is purely temporary, terminable without assigning any reason thereof. You are requested to join in your duties immediately, otherwise your claim for the post will automatically cease. 3. It is, now, submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that since a sanctioned post of lecturer, in Economics, has fallen vacant, in Arts Stream, in the said College, the petitioner (Smt. Manalisha Bhattarcharyya) is entitled, in terms of the relevant Government policy, to be appointed to the said sanctioned post of lecturer of Economics. The relevant Government policy, which the petitioner has relied upon, is embodied in Office Memorandum, dated 17.7.2004. 4. Before proceeding further, it needs to be pointed out and clarified that the petitioner's entire case is based on the proposition that her request to appoint her to the said sanctioned post of lecturer of Economics, in Arts Stream, is covered by the policy decision, which the Office Memorandum, dated 17.7.2004, aforementioned envisages. 4. Before proceeding further, it needs to be pointed out and clarified that the petitioner's entire case is based on the proposition that her request to appoint her to the said sanctioned post of lecturer of Economics, in Arts Stream, is covered by the policy decision, which the Office Memorandum, dated 17.7.2004, aforementioned envisages. The relevant portion of the Office Memorandum is, therefore, reproduced herein below: Sub : Application of vacant sanction post of lecturers to the departments of deficit grants-in-aid College where teachers are working without sanctioned post by way of re-adjustment. 1. There are more than 300 Colleges teachers found to be serving in different degree Colleges (deficit grants-in-aid Colleges) of Assam since 1989 serving for 5 to 14 years without any valid sanctioned post. These teachers have been serving in Colleges in a consolidated pay allowed by the representative College authorities from their own fund. These teachers were appointed by respective Governing Body of the College on the need basis as per UGC guidelines. The Government have also accorded concurrence to the subject against which they were appointed. There teachers have also been performing similar responsibilities like those teachers who have been working against sanctioned posts in the Colleges. 2. The Government could not sanction any additional post to the deficit-grant-in-aid Colleges since 1992.52 Nos. of colleges were brought under deficit system of grants-in-aid by the Government since 1992. But Government have not sanctioned any additional post of lecturers since then over and above originally allocated sanctioned post. As a result, the College authorities appointed lecturers without valid sanctioned post and have to bear the additional financial burden. 3. x x x 4. The State Government is not in a position to sanction any new post for the Colleges to accommodate the aforementioned College teachers serving without sanctioned posts. In view of the same and in pursuance too the approval of the Cabined dated 9.6.2004. The following procedures/modalities are hereby prescribed for adjustment of services of College teachers working without sanctioned posts as mentioned above. (a) Vacant posts in a particular department lying in a grants-in-aid College of Assam may be allowed in order of seniority to accommodate teachers in the same College who is working in some other department. The following procedures/modalities are hereby prescribed for adjustment of services of College teachers working without sanctioned posts as mentioned above. (a) Vacant posts in a particular department lying in a grants-in-aid College of Assam may be allowed in order of seniority to accommodate teachers in the same College who is working in some other department. Without a valid sanctioned post provided that such teachers was appointed by respective G.B. observing due procedure i.e. advertisement selection and having UGC norms required and if the need for such a post is justified by enrolment in that department of the college etc. provided further, the post is not be considered essential for the department against which it was originally sanctioned. (b) In case of any further vacancies of sanctioned posts. In a particular department College teachers working without valid sanctioned post but appointed as per procedure stated at (a) above are to be adjusted in preference to fresh teachers. 5. From what have been reproduced, it becomes clear that the said Office Memorandum applied to those teachers, who had been serving in those degree colleges, which had been run and administered, at the relevant point of time, as deficit grant-in-aid colleges. The colleges aforementioned had not been provincialised, when the Office Memorandum, dated 17.7.2004, was issued. There is no dispute that the post of lecturer of Economics, against which the petitioner seeks to be appointed, in Arts Stream, is sanctioned by the Government, but the post, against which the petitioner stands presently appointed as lecturer of Economics, in Commerce Stream, is not a sanctioned post. 6. In short, the post, against which the petitioner has sought to get appointed, in Commerce Stream, is not yet sanctioned or provincialised. It may also be pointed out that Economics is a subject, which is taught both in Arts as well as in Commerce Stream. The post of lecturer, of Economics, in Arts Stream, is, therefore, different from the post of lecturer of Economics in Commerce Stream. 7. It may also be pointed out that Economics is a subject, which is taught both in Arts as well as in Commerce Stream. The post of lecturer, of Economics, in Arts Stream, is, therefore, different from the post of lecturer of Economics in Commerce Stream. 7. A microscopic reading of the said Office Memorandum makes it abundantly clear that regularization or adjustments of the service of the lecturers, covered by the said Office Memorandum/are subject to, amongst others, following four conditions: (i) The appointment of the person, who seeks adjustment against a sanctioned post, was made to the non-sanctioned post by the Governing Body of the College concerned after adopting due selection procedure, i.e. after publishing an advertisement in this regard. (ii) The candidate must have had requisite qualifications and UGC norms. (iii) The non-sanctioned post, against which the sanctioned post is sought to be adjusted, is justified by the enrolment in the Department concerned. (iv) The sanctioned post, against which the non-sanctioned is sought to be adjusted, is no longer considered essential for the department against which it was, originally sanctioned. 8. From what have been indicated above, it becomes transparent that in order to enable any authority to adjust a candidate, appointed to a non-sanctioned post, against a sanctioned post, two conditions must be satisfied. One of these two conditions is that the authority concerned must be satisfied that the sanctioned post is no longer required and the other condition is that there is necessity of the non-sanctioned post. If necessity of sanctioned post continues, the appointee of non-sanctioned post cannot be adjusted, for such adjustment would amount to abolishing the sanctioned post. These two requirements aforementioned are besides the other two requisite conditions, namely, that the appointee to the non-sanctioned post had been appointed after a due selection procedure and that the appointee has requisite qualifications and UGC norms. 9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed after adopting due selection procedure. There is also no dispute that the petitioner has requisite UGC norms. It may also be true that the post of lecturer of Economics, in Commerce Stream (which is not yet provincialised) may be required in the said college. 9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed after adopting due selection procedure. There is also no dispute that the petitioner has requisite UGC norms. It may also be true that the post of lecturer of Economics, in Commerce Stream (which is not yet provincialised) may be required in the said college. However, the post of the lecturer of Economics, in Commerce Stream, which petitioner is presently holding, has to be adjusted (if this writ petition has to succeed) against the post of lecturer of Economics, which is in Arts Stream. The adjustment, which the petitioner, now, seeks, would, if allowed, lead to abolition of the sanctioned post of the lecturer of Economics, in Arts Stream, for by way of adjustment, the petitioner would be made lecturer of Economics, in Commerce Stream, and not a lecturer of Economics, in Arts Stream. Such adjustment is contrary to the scheme of adjustment, which the said Office Memorandum perceives, inasmuch as the adjustment, which is required to be made for the petitioner would amount to holding that the post of the lecturer of Economics, in Arts Stream, is no longer required. The Office Memorandum aforementioned makes it clear that such an adjustment, as the petitioner seeks, could have been made, had the sanctioned post of the lecturer of Economics, in Arts Stream, been considered by the College concerned as a post, which is no longer necessary, and if the authorities of the College concerned were of the view that the post of lecturer of Economics, in Commerce Stream, which the petitioner is presently holding, is justified by the number of enrollments of the students of Commerce Stream. If the College authorities take the decision to adjust the sanctioned post of lecturer of Economics, in Arts Stream, against the non-sanctioned post of lecturer of Economics, in Commerce Stream, it would amount to abolishing the sanctioned post of the lecturer of Economics, in Arts Stream. There is, admittedly, no such decision taken by the College authorities. Far from this, the case of the college authorities concerned is that the post of lecturer of Economics, in Arts Stream, is necessary and the petitioner can be appointed as a lecture of Economics, in Commerce Stream, as and when a post of lecturer of Economics, in Commerce Stream, is sanctioned by the Government. In fact, the College authorities, namely, respondent Nos. In fact, the College authorities, namely, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submit to the effect that as and when the Commerce Stream of their college is provincialised and a post of the lecturer of Economics, in Commerce Stream, in sanctioned, they would have no objection to adjust the petitioner against the sanctioned post, in the subject of Economics, which would become available, in the Commerce stream of the said college. 10. In view of the facts discussed and pointed out above, the adjustment, which the petitioner seeks, is not possible to be made on the strength of the Office Memorandum, dated 17.7.2004, aforementioned. 11. What follows from the above discussion is that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed