Honble PRASAD, J.–The petitioner was appointed vide appointment order Annexure 1 on 2.11.87 upto 30.11.87 on daily wages basis for finishing the arrears of work in the office of the respondents. She was again appointed vide Annexure 2 on 4.12. 87 upto 29.2.88 on a fixed salary for finishing the arrears of work. Her life of service vide Annexure 2 was upto 29.2.88 and on that day, her services were terminated. (2). The case of the petitioner is that she could not have been sent out of service without following the due process of law. The petitioner has further stated that in view of Annexure 7, similarly situated persons were regularised. (3). The respondents have put-in appearance and stated that this Court has already adjudicated the similar question of the same department of the employees who were appointed on daily wages basis and were appointed for a fixed term as stop-gap arrangement and such writ petitions were dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 8.1.94 passed in : Surendra Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1). The respondents have, also, placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision in Surendra Kumar Gyani vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2) wherein the similar appoint- ments were under question and were treated as fixed term appointments. He has further stated that the regularisation took place in certain matters because before the Supreme Court the Department stated that certain vacancies were there and on those certain available vacancies, the posts were filled-in but subsequently those vacancies were filled-in by the regularly selected candidates through Rajas- than Public Service Commission and in this view of the matter the petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought by her. (4). I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (5). In view of the ratio in Surendra Kumar Gyanis case (supra), the petitioner is not entitled, as a matter of right, to be considered and appointed on the post in question because her was a fixed term appointment. Since the respondents have filled-in the vacant posts by the regularly selected candidates through the R.P.S.C. and no vacancy was subsequently available, therefore, on that score, also, the writ petition cannot be considered. (6). For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.