JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. Angami, learned Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the State respondent. 1. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that she was appointed as Lower Division Assistant on casual basis at Kohima Science College, Jotsoma vide Order No. H.ED/ADMN-A/1/03 dated 23.02.2007 issued by the Director, Department of Higher Education, Government of Nagaland. And since then, she have continued in service and completed 10 years. That while serving in the College in that capacity, vacancies had arisen now and then, and to those vacancies, similarly situated persons have been regularised from time to time. At present there is a vacancy of Lower Division Assistant of a regular post is lying vacant due to the demise of one Smti. Toshimenla (Accountant), therefore, she submitted a representation to the respondent No.3 through proper channel for regularisation of her service as was done in the case of similarly situated persons. Her representation was forwarded by Principal of the College who had also highlighted the need of the service of the petitioner in the College and her suitability to the post. However, the petition did not bring any result. Considering the genuine grievance of the petitioner, the Non-Teaching Staff Association of the College also submitted a representation to the respondent No.3, requesting him, to regularise the service of the petitioner in view of the exigency of the service, and also considering the length of service of the petitioner as Casual Lower Division Assistant in the College. However, the said representation also did not bring any result. Therefore, the petitioner has come to this Court praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to regularise her service on the basis of the Office Memorandums dated 22.09.2004, Office Memorandum dated 04.08.2008 and another Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 issued by the Government of Nagaland, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Administrative Reforms Branch). On perusal of the 1st and 2nd Office Memorandums, on which the petitioner claimed that she can be regularized, it is found that the 1st Office Memorandum was issued only for regularisation of service of Work-charge employees and the 2nd Office Memorandum was issued only for regularisation of contract/adhoc appointees. On perusal of the 1st and 2nd Office Memorandums, on which the petitioner claimed that she can be regularized, it is found that the 1st Office Memorandum was issued only for regularisation of service of Work-charge employees and the 2nd Office Memorandum was issued only for regularisation of contract/adhoc appointees. Therefore, after some discussion, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner is not covered by those two Office Memorandums. Now coming to the 3rd Office Memorandum, it is agreed by both the learned counsels that the petitioner is covered by the same. In fact this Court also agrees with both the learned counsels, because, the Office Memorandums provides for regularisation of both Work-charge employees and causal employees. However, for a person who has been working as Work-charge employee or causal employees, to be eligible under the scheme provided in the 3rd Office Memorandum, such persons/employees should have enjoyed scale pay and completed 30 years of service in such capacity as on 01.01.2015. But admittedly, the petitioner has completed only 10 years as causal employee. Therefore, she can only get the benefits of the Office Memorandums on completion of 30 years, which she is not yet at the moment. 2. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation under the Office Memorandums submitted and relied upon by her. However, having said so, if, what the petitioner stated i.e. similarly situated persons had been regularised as and when vacancies had arisen is true, then her case should also be considered for regularisation in the same manner as was done in the case of such persons. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his concerned that if the petitioner is not regularise to the vacant post in her College she may not get the chance of being reqularise in service once the post is filled up. On careful reading of Clause-1 of para-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, I am of the opinion that the petitioner need not fear of non-availability of vacancy as and when she becomes eligible for consideration for regularisation, because, service of work-charge or causal employees, as per the provision stated above, are/is to be reqularised by conversion of their post into regular ones personal to them. It is up to the Department to either keep the vacancy as it is so that the petitioner may be regularised in it as and when she become eligible or allow her to continue in service in her present status and regularise her as per the Office Memorandum as and when she becomes eligible. The writ petition is disposed accordingly. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.