JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel representing Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Ms. B. Devi represents Respondent No. 5. There is none to represent the Finance Department. 2. While assailing the Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2009 and subsequent letter of the Finance (Budget) Department dated 20.03.2009 whereby the Government of Assam had introduced the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme in respect of employees joining the State Government service on or after 01.02.2005, a prayer is also made for a direction to the State Respondents to appoint the petitioner w.e.f. 2001 on grounds that he had been selected for the post of Teacher way back in the said year. 3. The brief facts emerging are that the petitioner had responded to the Advertisement of 1997 inviting applications for the post of Graduate Teachers in High Schools, pursuant to which a selection process was initiated and a Select List was published on 30.03.2001. In the said Select List although the petitioner’s name figured at Sl. No. 7 he was not extended with any appointment. Rather, persons below him had been given the benefit. 4. Ventilating his grievance, the petitioner had approached this Court in WP(C) 2985 of 2001. This Court by Order dated 11.08.2005 allowed the writ petition with direction to the respondents to scrutinise the claim of the petitioner against the existing vacancies available in any other provincialised Higher Secondary Schools of Assam. This Court had also taken note of the fact that the question of seniority had not been claimed by the petitioner. 5. In pursuance of the Order passed by this Court on 11.08.2005 and in compliance thereof, the respondent i.e. the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, issued the Order of Appointment dated 09.12.2006 appointing the petitioner as Assistant Teacher on regular scale-of-pay with posting at H.S. Bani Bidyapith, Chanmaguri in the District of Kamrup. In the said Order of Appointment it was also made clear that the petitioner will have to furnish an undertaking before joining in the School as prescribed by the Finance (Budget) Department regarding the introduction of the New Pension Rules. Consequently, the petitioner joined and until this date he is working as a Teacher in the said School. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved of the Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2009 followed by the letter of the Finance (Budget) Department dated 20.03.2009. Consequently, the petitioner joined and until this date he is working as a Teacher in the said School. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved of the Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2009 followed by the letter of the Finance (Budget) Department dated 20.03.2009. The said Office Memorandum pertains to introduction of the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme made applicable to all new entrants joining State Government service on regular basis against a vacant sanctioned post on or after 01.02.2005. In the light of the said Office Memorandum, the subsequent letter dated 20.03.2009 was issued indicating the decision of the Government to switch over to the New Contribution Pension Scheme from Defined Benefits Pension System in the line of the Government of India for the employees joining in the State Government services on or after 01.02.2005. 7. The case laid out by the petitioner is that since he had been selected way back in the year 2001 and despite his appointment in December 2006, the applicability of the Office Memorandum and/or the introduction of the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme cannot be made applicable to him. In other words, according to the petitioner since he was selected way back in the year 2001 and notwithstanding his eventual appointment in the year 2006, the State Government ought to have made an exception to the applicability of the New Pension Scheme in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned. 8. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner appears to be too extreme. The alleged denial of his appointment in the year 2001 and consequence thereof had already been decided upon by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. WP(C) 2985/2001. In the said case the claim made by the petitioner had been answered accordingly and the Court had come to a definite conclusion by directing the Respondents concerned to scrutinise the claim of the petitioner against existing vacancies available in any other pronvicialised Higher Secondary Schools of Assam. The said observation/direction have attained finality, in as much as, the said Order of the Court was not carried on appeal by the petitioner at any point of time. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner was offered appointment on 09.12.2006 and one of the conditions for joining in service was the furnishing of an undertaking with regard to the New Pension Rules. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner was offered appointment on 09.12.2006 and one of the conditions for joining in service was the furnishing of an undertaking with regard to the New Pension Rules. The petitioner having accepted the Order of Appointment dated 09.12.2006 cannot now turn around to say that the Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2009 cannot be made applicable to him. Even at the cost of repetition, the said Office Memorandum makes the New Pension Scheme applicable to all entrants joining the State Government service on or after 01.02.2005. The said Office Memorandum squarely applies to the case of the writ petitioner. 9. Having regard to the above, the petitioner cannot claim immunity of the Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2009 and/or to claim the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. No costs.