JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. J. A. Sikdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. S. Baruah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 6; Mr. A. Phukan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 5 and Mr. C. Baruah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. The grievance for which the instant writ petition was filed is that the petitioner was not granted the Grade Pay to which the petitioner was entitled to. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been granted the Pay Scale of Rs.5200 - 20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/- per month as mentioned in the advertisement dated 25.08.2010 from the date of his initial appointment and to fix the subsequent increment accordingly. 3. For appreciating the dispute involved, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. 4. An advertisement was issued on 25.08.2010 thereby inviting applications from Indian citizens in Standard Form for filling up of various temporary posts of Grade-III and Grade-IV in the Deputy Commissioner's establishment, Chirang. The post for which the petitioner applied is Stenographer Grade-III and the Pay Scale so mentioned in the advertisement was PB 2, Rs.5200- Rs.20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-. 5. It is pertinent to take note of that in the said advertisement, it was mentioned in respect to the post of Stenographer Grade-III that the applicants must be HSSLC passed and should have a speed of 80 WPM in Shorthand Diploma from ITI or recognized Institutions. The petitioner applied and vide an Office Orde dated 08.12.2010, the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer Grade- III in the scale of Rs.5,200-Rs.20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2,100/- plus other allowances as admissible as per Government Rules. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is the petitioner thereupon submitted various representations that his Grade Pay should have been Rs.2,400/- as per the advertisement. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is the petitioner thereupon submitted various representations that his Grade Pay should have been Rs.2,400/- as per the advertisement. However, on the basis of a communication dated 17.08.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chirang to the Commissioner and Secretary, General Administration Department, it was informed to the petitioner that the petitioner had been granted the Grade Pay of Rs.2,100/- on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the certificate of Stenography from ITI or other any recognized Institution. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had produced the certificate of Stenography from other Private Institution, and as such, the petitioner was granted the scale of under-qualified Stenographer of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2,100/- instead of Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- as per ROP for negligence of future recovery. The petitioner being aggrieved therefore had filed the writ petition seeking the relief as aforementioned. 7. This Court had issued notice vide an order dated 05.01.2018. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the respondent No.7 who is the Principal of the Institute from where the petitioner had obtained the Diploma had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was mentioned that the Institute, namely, M/S Apollo Commercial Institute, Bongaigaon is a firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It was also mentioned that from the said Institution various persons have obtained Diploma in Stenography and have been pursuing service as Stenographer in various Courts and Institutions. The respondent No.6 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner was under- qualified as per the advertisement, and as such, the petitioner was not granted the Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-, but was granted the Grade Pay in the capacity as an under-qualified Stenographer as per the ROP Rules. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, and from a perusal of the materials on record, there is nothing to show that the Apollo Commercial Institute from where th the petitioner had obtained the Diploma on 10 of November, 2008 is a Government recognized Institute. The certificate given by the Apollo Commercial Institute dated 17.10.2017 stating that it is a Government recognized Institute, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be considered as a certificate of recognition as a recognized Institute sans a statutory Department recognizing the said Institute. 9. The certificate given by the Apollo Commercial Institute dated 17.10.2017 stating that it is a Government recognized Institute, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be considered as a certificate of recognition as a recognized Institute sans a statutory Department recognizing the said Institute. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any ground for judicial interference to the decision of the respondents to grant the petitioner the Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2,100/- taking into account that the petitioner has failed to place before this Court that the Institute from where the petitioner obtained the Diploma is either ITI or a Government recognized Institution. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court therefore does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the same stands dismissed.