JUDGMENT 1. - Since on similar facts, the same relief has been sought in all the above writ petitions, the same are being decided by this common order. 2. State Government, vide notification dated 20th of July, 1992 constituted a State Law Commission under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Justice Shri Vinod Shanker Dave. The State Law Commission was constituted for a particular purpose mentioned in the notification. The tenure of the Commission was initially for one year which could be extended further each time for not more than one year. The term of the Commission was extended from time to time. However, vide order dated 28.10.1996 the State Law Commission was closed w.e.f. 31st of October, 1996. 3. After constitution of the State Law Commission the petitioners were given appointment by the Commission on purely adhoc/temporary basis on the posts of Class IVth/Driver/LDC. With the extension of term of the Commission the temporary service period of the petitioners was also extended from time to time. However, with the closing of the working of the Commission w.e.f. 31.10.1996 the services of the petitioners were also terminated by the Commission w.e.f. 31.10.1996 vide order dated 14.10.1996. 4. Petitioners have challenged the order of termination in the present writ petitions and also prayed that State Government may be directed to absorb the petitioners in other departments of the Government on the equivalent/equated posts with all consequential benefits under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969. 5. Admittedly, the initial appointment given to the petitioners was purely on temporary/adhoc basis for a fixed period. The appointment was given by the Secretary, State Law Commission. The extension was also given by the State Law Commission and ultimately the termination order was also issued by the Secretary, State Law Commission after closing down of the Commission itself. 6. Mr. Ajay Rastogi, counsel for the petitioners, very fairly and candidly admitted that the petitioners appointed purely on temporary/adhoc basis by the State Law Commission cannot be treated as State Government employees and Rajasthan Service Rules cannot be made applicable on such employees. 6. Mr. Ajay Rastogi, counsel for the petitioners, very fairly and candidly admitted that the petitioners appointed purely on temporary/adhoc basis by the State Law Commission cannot be treated as State Government employees and Rajasthan Service Rules cannot be made applicable on such employees. His only contention is that some employees from the State Law Commission have been allowed to be transferred to other departments of the State Government and also earlier the temporary employees of "Beri Commission" were declared surplus from that Commission after expiry of the term and were absorbed in other departments of the State Government. 7. The contention of Mr. Rastogi is that since some of the employees have been allowed transfer to other departments and also on earlier occasion employees of such Commission have been allowed to be absorbed in other departments, petitioners are entitled to get the same relief and if the similar treatment is not given to the petitioners, it will amount to clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Virendra Kumar and others v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1981 SC page 1775 . 8. Under Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules of 1969 surplus personnel or surplus employees have been defined. Only those Govt. servants to whom the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 apply and who are declared surplus by the Government or by the Appointing Authority, under directions of the Government, on their being rendered surplus to the requirements of a particular department of the Government due to the reduction of posts or abolition of offices therein as measures of economy, but in whose case the Government decides not to terminate their services, but to retain them in service by absorption on other posts are treated as surplus personnel or surplus employees. 9. In the present case, petitioners are neither Government servants nor Rajasthan Service Rules are applicable on them. Since the Commission was constituted for a particular purpose and for a particular period, the persons appointed by such Commission on purely temporary adhoc basis cannot claim a right of continuing in employment once the term of Commission itself has come to an end. Such employees cannot even be absorbed in other departments of the Govt. under Surplus Rules of 1969 as they are not governed by the same. 10. Such employees cannot even be absorbed in other departments of the Govt. under Surplus Rules of 1969 as they are not governed by the same. 10. So far as employees of Beri Commission are concerned, no material has' been placed on record to show as to under what conditions such employees were appointed and on what circumstances they-were declared surplus and absorbed in other departments of the Govt. 11. It is also not clear as to how other employees of the Commission could be allowed to be transferred to other departments. Moreso, when they were appointed by the Commission on temporary/adhoc basis. 12. Moreover, if the State has committed some mistake or illegality, the same cannot be allowed to be repeated in future. This Court under its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction should not pass such orders which may further perpetuate such illegality or wrongs committed by the State Government- If the prayer made by the petitioners is accepted, it will be otherwise violative Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in as such as persons not appointed in accordance with relevant Rules shall be put at par with those who had gone through the process of selection in accordance with the relevant Rules in the Government departments. 13. The petitioners knew that they have been given appointment by the Commission purely on temporary/adhoc basis and there appointments may continue only till the existence of the Commission. Once the term of the Commission itself has come to an end and the Commission does not exist at all, the prayer made by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and untenable. 14. The judgment, dated by the counsel for the petitioners, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******