JUDGMENT 1. - As almost identical questions of fact and law are involved in both the cases, the same are disposed of by one single order. 2. The petitioner in S.B. Civil writ petition No. 1723/83 was appointed as Vyavasthapak in Tai Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd., on October 24, 1981 for a period of three months or till regularly selected/recruited Vyavasthapaks will be available to respondent Bank. He was removed from service on February 4, 1982 without giving any notice and opportunity of being heard. The petitioner was again appointed as Vyavasthapak by order, dated May 1, 1982. The service of the petitioner has now been terminated by order, Annexure 2, dated May 16, 1983. 3. The petitioner in writ petition No. 1724/83 was appointed as Vyavasthapak by the Jhunjhunu Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jhunjhunu by order, dated May 11, 1982 at salary of Rs. 250/- p.m. He was appointed on this post for a period of three months or till regularly recruited Vyavasthapak would be available. According to the petitioner he was initially appointed as Vyavasthapak of Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti, Hasasari. According to the petitioner his work was quite satisfactory and he was neither informed nor communicated with any adverse remark regarding his work. He was surprised to receive knowledge from the staff members of the Bank that his services have been terminated with effect from June 30, 1983 and an order had been issued in this regard. The petitioner thereafter tried to find out the reality and came to know that an order, dated May 16, 1983, Annexure 2, had been issued by the Bank but the order has not been served upon the petitioner. He has worked for more than 240 days but the order terminating his services has been passed without giving hits any notice or opportunity of hearing. 4. The petitioner has further alleged that other persons who were appointed as Vyavasthapak along with the petitioner continued to work on their respective posts and their names are Vidhyadhar Singh son of Jalu Singh who is working as Vyavasthapak, Grain Seva Sahkari Samiti, Tai and Vijai Singh at Tamkore. The petitioner in these circumstances has filed this writ petition challenging the order, Annexure 2. dated May 16, 1983 as patently violative of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. The petitioner in these circumstances has filed this writ petition challenging the order, Annexure 2. dated May 16, 1983 as patently violative of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. On a show cause notice the respondent Bank has filed reply in S.B. Civil writ petition No. 1723/83 but the grounds taken in the reply are identical in both the cases. It is submitted in the reply that the petitioner was given a temporary appointment which was finally extended upto June 30, 1983. The service conditions of Vyavasthapaks appointed at different Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd.) are regulated by the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies Vyavasthapaks Selection. Appointment and Service Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1977)". These rules have been framed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in exercise of powers conferred under rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules. 1966 The appointments on the post of Vyavasthapaks are made by the Cadre Authority. The payment has also been made from the funds of the Cadre Authority as laid down in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1977. Rule 8 regulates the selection and appointments on the post of Vyavasthapaks. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1977 provides that the temporary appointment on the post of Vyavasthapak can be made by the Chief Executive (Managing Director) of the Central Cooperative Banks in case the posts are lying vacant due to the fact that the selected Vyavasthapaks have been sent for training course. These temporary appointments have been provided to be made from the penal prepared by the Selection Committee. The temporary appointment as such on the post of Vyavasthapak is only contemplated under Rule 84 when the selected candidates have been sent for training. In any circumstance this temporary appointment cannot be for more than a year. 6. It has been further stated in the reply that it is not the case of the petitioner that he was appointed against a vacancy caused for the reason that the selected Vyavasthapak has been sent for training. In view of these facts the initial appointment of the petitioner is not covered under rule 8. Apart from this his name was not included in the panel. In view of these facts the initial appointment of the petitioner is not covered under rule 8. Apart from this his name was not included in the panel. His temporary appointment was only for a period of three months and it cannot be allowed to continue for a period more than one year in any case. The Managing Director passed an order on May 16, 1983 by which the term of his appointment was finally extended upto June 30, 1983. The term has been extended upto June 30, 1983 for the reason that June 30 was the last day of the year and during this period it was the peak period for the recovery of loans and advancement of loans by the institution and also to give one month's notice to the petitioner. It has been further stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. He was admittedly appointed on ad hoc basis and his temporary services have been terminated by giving him one month's notice. It has been further alleged that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the Cadre Authority, i.e., Rajasthan Credit Institution Cadre Authority Ltd., Jaipur has not been impleaded as a party. It has also been alleged that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy by resorting provisions of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. It has also been alleged that the non-petitioner is not a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 7. It would not he necessary to go in the objections taken by the respondent whether Cadre Authority is a necessary party and whether the non-petitioner is a State or Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as the writ petitions fail on merits itself. 8. The letters of appointment filed by the petitioners clearly indicate that the appointment has been made purely on ad hoc basis for a period of three months or till duly selected Vyavasthapaks were made available. This period of three months was further extended but the appointment of the petitioners remained purely on ad hoc and temporary basis. By order, Annexure 2, dated May 16, 1983 the period was only extended upto June 30, 1983 and it was mentioned that with effect from June 30, 1983 afternoon their services would come to an end automatically. This period of three months was further extended but the appointment of the petitioners remained purely on ad hoc and temporary basis. By order, Annexure 2, dated May 16, 1983 the period was only extended upto June 30, 1983 and it was mentioned that with effect from June 30, 1983 afternoon their services would come to an end automatically. The petitioners neither in writ petitions nor during the course of arguments were able to show any rule or law under which they were entitled to remain in service after June 30, 1983 The appointment has not been made under Rule 8 of rules of 1977 as the same was not made on account of the reason that any selected Vyavasthapaks had been sent for training Even under Rule 8 such temporary appointment cannot be extended beyond a period of more than a year. The petitioners in these circumstances were purely appointed on a contractual basis and the respondent Bank had a right to terminate the contract. By Annexure 2, dated May 16, 1983 this term was extended upto, June 30, 1983 and thereafter the petitioners can claim no legal right to continue on the post of Vyavasthapak. There is neither any stigma nor any penalty given to the petitioners by terminating their services. It is not the case of the petitioners raised in the writ petitioners that the non-petitioner is an industry and there is any violation of any provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. In the result, I find no force in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed summarily. *******