JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Ms. D. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Haloi, learned counsel for the respondent, GMDA and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the Finance Department. 2. The petitioner was engaged as Office Assistant on contractual basis by the respondents, GMDA, Dispur Zone pursuant to a selection process through an advertisement dated 07.08.2015. The petitioner on being successful in the selection process was so appointed along with 21 (twenty one) numbers of other similarly situated employees and were engaged on a contractual basis for a period of 11 (eleven) months with effect from 17.02.2017. Subsequently, the service was extended for another period of 1 (one) year as approved by Mayor-in-Council for the GMDA in its meeting held on 24.01.2018. Consequent thereof, the contractual appointment stood extended upto 17.01.2019. Subsequent thereto, by order dated 11.01.2019, the service stood extended for another 12 (twelve) months. During the extended period, the petitioner was in child care leave for 3 (three) months. In the meantime, the term of the appointment came to an end. 3. Some of the other similarly situated persons had approached this Court prior to their contract having come to an end by way of W.P. (C) No. 3849/2019 which was given a final consideration by the order dated 11.06.2019. 4. In the order date 11.06.2019, this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3849/2019 had provided as below: “13. It is the Guwahati Municipal Corporation which is actually running the affairs of the Corporation and not the Guwahati Development Department, and as such the GMC would be in a better position to assess the requirement of services of their employees. The Guwahati Municipal Corporation, because of the requirement of the service of the contractual employee, had accordingly, requested the Guwahati Development Department to extend the service of all the contract employees. It is the Guwahati Municipal Corporation which is in the better position to understand the needs and requirement of Guwahati Municipal Corporation, not the Guwahati Development Department. 14. Therefore, if the Guwahati Development Department allows the extension of contractual service in respect of certain persons and disallows in respect of the petitioners, it must be based on certain reasonable basis which the Court would like to examine, for which the authorities are directed to produce the relevant records on the next date on 26.06.2019. 15. 14. Therefore, if the Guwahati Development Department allows the extension of contractual service in respect of certain persons and disallows in respect of the petitioners, it must be based on certain reasonable basis which the Court would like to examine, for which the authorities are directed to produce the relevant records on the next date on 26.06.2019. 15. However, till then, impugned order dated 04.06.2019 as well as the release order dated 07.06.2019 shall remain suspended.” 5. It is stated that the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 3849/2019 are presently working pursuant to the requirement of consideration by this Court in the order dated 11.06.2019. The petitioner was left out of the said process as because she was on child care leave. But there would be substantial difference between the petitioner and others inasmuch as, in case of the others, they had approached the Court within the currency of their extended term of engagement whereas, because of the child care leave availed by the petitioner, the petitioner had approached the Court subsequent to her term coming to an end. The law in this respect is settled that an extension can be given only when the person concerned approached the authority during the currency of the earlier term. 6. From that point of view, we are unable to accept that the petitioner has a right for her service to be extended, but at the same time, apart from the difference that the petitioner had approached subsequently she is similarly situated like the earlier petitioners of the W.P. (C) No. 3849/2019 as petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 3849/2019 were given a final consideration by this Court requiring the authorities to take a decision on that. We are of the view that the ends of justice in this writ petition would also be met, if the petitioner approaches the respondent GMDA and raises a claim before them and it would be open for the respondents GMDA to consider the case of the petitioner in any manner as they may be advised on the matter. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner may approach the respondent GMDA for the purpose, if necessary, by filing appropriate representation. 8. Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.