JUDGMENT 1. - All these 3 writ petitions are based on similar facts and common question arise for determination by this Court. Therefore, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In order to understand the controversy it will be appropriate to refer to some of the facts given in S.B. Civil writ Petition No.3675/91 Ashutosh Goswami v. U.O.T. and others . 3. The petitioner has stated that he joined service at Nodal Centre, Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur in the year 1989 against the post of Field Investigator/Data Collection Personnel. He was initially appointed for a period of 75 days with effect from 25.10.79. This appointment was preceded by an advertisement issued by the Registrar, Malviya Regional Engineering College for filling the vacancies at the Nodal Centre This Centre was established under the scheme of National Manpower Information System (NMIS) sponsored by the Government of India. The petitioner was paid consolidated salary of Rs.1000/- per month. The period of appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time. The scheme is being funded by the Government of India. By 30.6.91 the petitioner has served for about 2 years and has therefore, completed more than 240 days of service for the purpose of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner apprehended termination of his service and therefore he served a notice of demand for justice telegraphically on 26.6.91 requesting the Chairman and Principal of the College not to issue order of termination of his service. 4. The case of the petitioner is that NMIS is a approved scheme of the Government of India. The scheme has bee framed on the recommendations made by the All India Council for Technical Education in order to provide an up to date and meaningful manpower information on a continuing basis in order to enable the concerned authorities to inspect the areas of youth in the field of Science and Technology, & prepare plan for technical manpower development on proper lines. Scheme consists of three type machinery, There is the Lead Centre at IAMR. Then there are lead centres at the selected institutions of engineering and technology for establishing Nodal Centres. Then there is a manpower Cell in the Ministry of Human Resources Development Govt. of India. Scheme consists of three type machinery, There is the Lead Centre at IAMR. Then there are lead centres at the selected institutions of engineering and technology for establishing Nodal Centres. Then there is a manpower Cell in the Ministry of Human Resources Development Govt. of India. One such Nodal Centre has been established at MREC, Jaipur & the petitioner has been serving at this Noal Centre. The Nodal Centre at MREC consist of large number of Govt. representatives & the authorities of MREC. The petitioner's case is that the termination of his engagement with effect from 30-6-81 is wholly arbitrary, illegal & unjustified. The State Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 5-3-91 took certain policy decisions. The Committee decided that the Data Collection Personnel are to be given break in service of two/three days after every term of appointment & the amount of consolidated pay should be enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1250/-. The petitioner's case is that the Nodal Centre at MREC is continuing. The petitioners are still continuing. The petitioner had been selected after regular selection and therefore, there could be no justification for termination of his service. 5. In its reply the Union of India has stated that in November, 77, the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Government of India set up a Working Group of Technical Education to review the nation's needs during coming decade and to suggest reorientation and improvement in the existing programmes. On the recommendation: of this Committee NMIS was established. In order to make NMIS operational it was necessary to establish country wide network. Therefore, some Colleges and other selected technical institutes were chosen as Nodal points. A lead centre was established under the Institute of Applied Manpower Research for the purpose of storage, updating the retrieval and analysis of manpower information to assist technical education plan. The Government of India issued order dated 20 1. 96 to give full effect to the scheme. The respondent No. I has denied that statement of the petitioner that sum of Rs. 1000/- drawn by him is charge against the head of salary and allowances. It has also been denied that the petitioner had been appointed as regular temporary employee for specific post of Investigator. It has been stated that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have no application. 1000/- drawn by him is charge against the head of salary and allowances. It has also been denied that the petitioner had been appointed as regular temporary employee for specific post of Investigator. It has been stated that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have no application. Neither MREC nor the Nodal Centre is an industry for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act. Specific ceiling has been fixed for the Grant-in -Aid to be given to the Nodal Centre. The work under the scheme has a routine component and also a non-routine component. The work under the non routine component covers sending questionnaires by post after the result of examination is announced, collecting data during one part of the year from individuals who fail to send replies through post, transcribing data obtained through post or personal contact etc. The network under non-routine component vary from month to month. Therefore, each Nodal Centre has been provided with money for hiring service of Inspector for 45 man months during a financial year. Those working in this scheme do not acquire any statutory status. The Nodal Centre has to decide as to in what manner and order and in what number of (month wise) the services of individuals are to be procured. The respondent No. I has, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has no right to claim continuity of service or substantive status. 6. In its reply respondent No. 2 has stated that the original scheme provided that the Nodal Centres shall be entitled to collect the necessary data through appropriate programming by employing the students of senior classes. Original scheme provided payment up to 55 man months in a year at the rate of not exceeding Rs. 500/- per month. The respondent No. 2 has denied the statement of the petitioner that an advertisement was issued by MREC for filling the vacancies at Nodal Centre. Appointment of the petitioner for a fixed period of 75 days with effect from 25-10-89 was without any advertisement. The list was called by the MREC from man power department of the Government and from that list appointment on consolidated salary was given to the petitioner. The term of engagement of the petitioner was for a specific period and the same was extended from time to time. The last extension was given up to 30-6-91 by order dated 3-1-91. The list was called by the MREC from man power department of the Government and from that list appointment on consolidated salary was given to the petitioner. The term of engagement of the petitioner was for a specific period and the same was extended from time to time. The last extension was given up to 30-6-91 by order dated 3-1-91. Respondent No. 2 has admitted that the State Advisory Committee met on 5-3-91. It has then been stated that since the employment of Data Collection Personnel is purely temporary, a decision was taken to give a break in service of the temporary appointees. The respondent No. 2 has further stated that the petitioner was engaged on a purely temporary basis and no right has come to be vested in him for being continued in service. The last extension in the term of appointment of the petitioner came to an end on 30-6-91. No order for termination of service by the petitioner is in fact necessary because his service came to an end automatically with the expiry of the period specified. The Principal Malaviya Regional Engineering College, who is also Chairman of the Nodal Centre was of the view that the data which has been collected by tire. petitioner \v 11 have to analysed and till the analysis is over, the Data Collection Personnel need not be appointed and after 3 months the posts may be re-advertised. 7. The respondent No. 2 has justified the non-extension of the term of the appointment of the petitioner by ascertaining that appointment of the petitioner was for a fixed period & no right came to vest in favour of the petitioner. No direction can be given for extension the term of appointment of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 is also stated that Nodal Centre established by the Government of India do not come within the scope of the term "other authorities" as used in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and these fore, writ petition is not maintainable. 8. Shri D. D. Goswami, learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the decision of the respondents in not extending the term of appointment of the petitioner clearly amounts termination of services of the petitioners. This has been done after the petitioners have rendered almost 2 years service continuously. The petitioners have been regularly selected to work at the Nodal Centre. This has been done after the petitioners have rendered almost 2 years service continuously. The petitioners have been regularly selected to work at the Nodal Centre. The requirement of the procedure for regular selection has been fulfilled. Shri Goswami strenuously argued that the posts are continuing and the petitioners are duly selected persons, and therefore there could be no justification for not continuing the petitioners in service. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 (1) SCC 361 and Rabinarain Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, 1991 (2) SVIR (L) 8 , Puran Mal v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1) RLR 1 and Ajeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 (2) SLR 1 . Shri Goswami further argued that the decision of the Advisory Committee to give break in the service for 2/3 days is absolutely arbitrary and malice. This malafide act of giving break in service amounts to unfair labour practice. 9. Shri R. M. Lodha and Shri G. S. Bapna on other hand argued that the Nodal Centres have been established at the State level under a particular scheme and they have to work in accordance with the provisions contained in the scheme. The ceiling limit for engaging the manpower has been fixed in the scheme. Initially the scheme provided for engaging 55 man months of manpower. It has subsequently been reduced to 45 manpower for each year. The work at the Nodal Cantre vary from month to month. The work of inspector is much more during after the period of examination. Thus only for few months the work is more. For the remaining period the work is very less. Therefore, there could he no justification for the claim of the petitioners that they should be treated as having been substantially appointed or regularly appointed in the service of the respondents. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted in the advertisement itself it was clearly stipulated that the engagement will be for 75 per day and not more than that. Therefore, no legal right can be said to have vested in favour of the petitioners to continue in service. 10. A perusal of the Annexure R-2/1 dated 9-11-83 gives a clear picture to the nature of the engagement of the petitioners. Paras 4 and 5 in this document can appropriately be quoted below : "4. Therefore, no legal right can be said to have vested in favour of the petitioners to continue in service. 10. A perusal of the Annexure R-2/1 dated 9-11-83 gives a clear picture to the nature of the engagement of the petitioners. Paras 4 and 5 in this document can appropriately be quoted below : "4. The Advisory Committee in each State would provide guidance and support to the nodal centre and will ensure that the work in each State becomes comprehensive enough to constitute a complete information system at the State level. For the effective and correct discharge of the responsibilities assigned to the nodal centres, each Centre would be entitled to appoint staff comprising of the following Name of Post No. of Posts Scale of pay 1. Project Officer (Reader) 1 Rs. 1200-1900 2. P. A. 1 Rs. 330-560 3. Research Associate 1 Rs. 550-900 5. Besides, the nodal centres shall also be entitled to collect the necessary data through appropriate programming by employing student of senior classes i. e., postgraduate level and Ph. D. level during the vacation periods. The data thus collected can be processed by the nodal centres on a continuing basis round the year. Each nodal centre will be entitled to an assistance from senior students amounting to 55 man months in a year. Each student would be paid by the concerned nodal centres at the rate not exceeding Rs. 500/- per month. In all each nodal centre would be entitled to incur expenditure not exceeding Rs. 27,500/. per annum for collection of data by employing students of the senior classes." 11. The petitioners were not appointed on any post but were engaged for a specific period and they were paid consolidated salary in lieu of this engagement. The period of engagement of the petitioners was subsequently extended from time to time. The last extension was up to 30-6-91. Thereafter, extension has not been given. There is nothing on record to establish that any sanctioned' regular posts were created at the Nodal Centre with the designation of In' stigator/Field Supervisor. At the same time no material has been placed by the petitioner on record to show that the so called posts had been advertised for regular selection and they were selected by following procedure prescribed for regular selection. At the same time no material has been placed by the petitioner on record to show that the so called posts had been advertised for regular selection and they were selected by following procedure prescribed for regular selection. Thus the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have acquired a right to continue in service, cannot be accepted. The petitioners engagement for the post of Collection of data was purely temporary and for a specific period. The term of the engagement was extended from time to time, but no extension was given beyond 30-6-91. Having regard to the nature of the scheme as well as the nature of engagement of the petitioners, it is not possible to hold that any of the legal or fundamental rights of the petitioners has been violated or that the respondents have acted with malice or arbitrariness. 12. The decisions to which reference has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are wholly inapplicable to the questions involved in these three writ petitions. Bhagwati Prasad' case (supra) relates to framing of the scheme for regularisation of the service of persons who had completed one years service. Similarly, Ravindranarain Mohapatra's case relate to claim of regularisation of service by teacher who had completed 4 years service with a short breaks. The Puran Mal's case decided by Single Bench of this Court relates to claim by the employees who were engaged on certain specific schemes. This decision has since been reversed by the Supreme Court and therefore, it can be of no assistance to the petitioners. In Ajeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 (2) SLR 1 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that once annual grade increments are given, satisfactory completion of service by the employees must be presumed. That was a case in which the petitioners and others has been appointed on regular basis. After termination of their services fresh hands were engaged. It was stated by the Urban Improvement Trust, that the work of the petitioners was not satisfactory. On the premise that grant of annual grade increments to an employee given rise to the presumption of satisfactory service, their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the plea of the respondents that the services of the petitioners had been terminated on account of the same being unsatisfactory. On the premise that grant of annual grade increments to an employee given rise to the presumption of satisfactory service, their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the plea of the respondents that the services of the petitioners had been terminated on account of the same being unsatisfactory. In my opinion that case is wholly irrelevant in so far as the facts of these three writ petitions are concerned.The petitioners have failed to make out any case for issue of a writ in their favour. Consequently, the writ petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petitions Dismissed. *******