JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Ms. S.G. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition challenging the Advertisement dated 25.07.2016 issued for filling up the vacant Grade-IV posts in the establishment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur and has further sought for a direction for regularization of the petitioner’s services as Attached Peon with the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. 3. The materials on record reveal that the petitioner was appointed on 22.02.2005 on temporary basis as an Attached Peon to one Sri Mahendra Kalita, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. There is nothing on record, as to how, the petitioner's services were thereafter extended, more particularly, when the petitioner’s appointment was specifically attached to the said Officer concerned. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner continued to render service. On 25.07.2016, an Advertisement was issued by the Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up of 4 (four) posts of Attached Peon, 1 (one) post of Chowkidar and 1 (one) post of Driver. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the said Advertisement and the non- consideration of his case for regularization, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. The records reveal that this Court vide an order dated 20.12.2016 while issuing notice directed that the respondents may go ahead with the selection process, but shall keep 1 (one) post of Attached Peon vacant until further orders passed in the case. The resultant effect is that till date a regular post of Peon in the establishment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur has remained vacant for the last 9 (nine) years. 6. The writ petition came up before this Court on 27.11.2025. This Court enquired with the Gauhati High Court, as to why, no affidavit has been filed. An undertaking was given that an affidavit would be filed on or before 15.12.2025 and accordingly, this Court directed the present writ petition to be listed on 18.12.2025. 6. The writ petition came up before this Court on 27.11.2025. This Court enquired with the Gauhati High Court, as to why, no affidavit has been filed. An undertaking was given that an affidavit would be filed on or before 15.12.2025 and accordingly, this Court directed the present writ petition to be listed on 18.12.2025. However, no affidavit has been filed by the Gauhati High Court in spite of such assurance. 7. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 8. Ms. S.G. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner had rendered service since 2005, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized, more so, in view of the Circular of the Gauhati High Court dated 31.08.2015 whereby workers working in the Subordinate Courts who had completed 10 (ten) years or more of service as on 14.08.2015 were to be regularized as a one-time measure. The learned counsel further submitted that this very aspect was not adhered to insofar as the petitioner is concerned, taking into account that the petitioner had already rendered more than 10 (ten) years of service as on 14.08.2015. 9. Per contra, Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court submitted that the said scheme referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable insofar as the petitioner is concerned, taking into account that the petitioner was appointed purely as an Attached Peon and was not a contingent worker. The scheme which the petitioner has been referring to is a scheme for contingent workers. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the judgment so passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition is squarely applicable and this Court may duly pass orders as per the directions contained therein. 10. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the respective submissions. 11. From a perusal of the appointment order, it is seen that the petitioner's appointment on 22.02.2005 was specifically attached to an Officer inasmuch as it was clearly stipulated in the said order of appointment itself that the services of the petitioner would be terminated as soon as the Officer concerned is transferred from the station or otherwise, whichever is earlier. From a perusal of the appointment order, it is seen that the petitioner's appointment on 22.02.2005 was specifically attached to an Officer inasmuch as it was clearly stipulated in the said order of appointment itself that the services of the petitioner would be terminated as soon as the Officer concerned is transferred from the station or otherwise, whichever is earlier. Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have continued in the establishment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. There is nothing on record that the petitioner's appointment was on the basis of some form of selection process. It is the opinion of this Court that regularization can only happen when the appointment is irregular. However, as the petitioner’s appointment under no circumstances was irregular, the question of regularization does not arise. The appointment of the petitioner, and more particularly, the continuation was in conflict with Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. Be that as it may, this Court cannot turn a nelson’s eye to the fact that the petitioner had rendered service for more than 10 (ten) years at the time of filing of the writ petition and continues to serve even thereupon. This Court had also duly taken note of Annexure-3 to the writ petition which is a scheme and in the opinion of this Court, the said scheme dated 31.08.2015 cannot be made applicable insofar as the case of the petitioner. 13. This Court also upon perusal of the materials on record is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to similar directions as were passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in its judgment and order dated 09.04.2010 in various writ petitions, including WP(C) No. 5003/2002. 14. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i) The post kept vacant pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court be forthwith advertised, thereby inviting applications from eligible candidates. (ii) This Court observes and directs the Respondent Authorities to permit the petitioner who is still working, to continue till the said post is filled up by way of a due selection process. (ii) This Court observes and directs the Respondent Authorities to permit the petitioner who is still working, to continue till the said post is filled up by way of a due selection process. (iii) Taking into account that the petitioner has rendered service all this while, the petitioner be permitted to participate in the said selection process and in the event, the petitioner participates, his age be condoned and due weightage be given to the petitioner while carrying out the selection, for his past service and experience. (iv) Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.