JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. A. Chetia, learned counsel for the petitioner. And also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Handloom and Textile and Sericulture Department, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, for respondent nos.4 and 5.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the communication dated 04.07.2022 by the Director of Handloom and Textile, Government of Assam to the Superintendent of Handloom and Textile, Golaghat, whereby, the rejection of the proposal for regularization of the services of the petitioner as Lower Division Assistant (in short LDA) by the Government has been conveyed. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction for regularization of her service and to release her arrear salary since April, 2016 to February, 2022.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was temporarily allowed to officiate as LDA in the office of the Superintendent of Handloom and Textile, Golaghat, vide order dated 04.09.1992 and since, then she is performing her duties diligently and to the satisfaction of all concerned. She has joined her service on 07.09.1992 and has been continuously working in the post of LDA.

4. Despite her several approaches for regularization and payment of monthly salary since the month of March, 1997, when the respondent authorities failed to redress, the petitioner approached this Court being WP(C) No. 6538/1999 praying for regularization of her services as well as payment of her salary and allowances. This Court vide order dated 30.03.2006 has disposed of the said writ petition, which is reproduced herein below:-

"In the above premises, on a consideration of the materials on record in their entirety, I close this petition with a direction to the respondent No. 2, the Director, Handloom and Textile, Assam, Guwahati-5, to initiate a process for considering the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services.

Needless to say, while assessing her suitability for the post, the past services rendered by her would be taken note of to provide weightage to her claim. It is submitted at the Bar that presently the petitioner is aged about 37 years. Keeping in mind that the petitioner had been inducted to the post in question at a point of time when she was of the eligible age, the respondent authorities while considering her case would also leniently look into that aspect of the matter and would not disqualify her on that count. As the petitioner is waiting in expectation since long, the exercise indicated herein above would be completed within a period of six weeks of, receipt of the certified copy of this order.

The petition stands disposed in the above terms. It is, however, made clear that this Court hereby has neither directed, to appoint the petitioner in her post on regular basis nor regularize her service. It would be within the discretion of the concerned respondent authority to take an appropriate decision in the matter strictly in accordance with law. No costs."

5. It is contended by the petitioner that during the course of her employment, a process was initiated for making regular appointment to the post of LDA and accordingly, the petitioner had offered her candidature for which she was called for interview in which she appeared. The Superintendent of Handloom and Textile, Golaghat, while the petitioner was continuously serving, has requested the Director, of Handloom and T