By this common order the above civil rules are proposed to be disposed of finally. 2. The petitioners in these civil rules were appointed by the State Govt temporarily on ad hoc basis till repatriation of Bangladesh Tribal refugees. The appointment orders were issued in the year 1990 and by this time the petitioners have already rendered about 7/8 years of service. Vide order dated 6th March, 1997 (Annexure B), the services of the petitioners were extended for one year or till repatriation of Bangladesh Tribal refugees, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, the State Govt decided to discharge the petitioners from service from 31st of July, 1998, and this decision was communicated by the Joint Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation Department vide letter dated 15.6.1998. Although representations were submitted by the petitioners to allow them to continue in service, the Sub Divisional Officer, Amarpur, vide order dated 10th July, 1998 (Annexure N), discharged them from service with effect from 31.7.1998. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions for quashing the message dated 12.6.98, the letter dated 15.6.1998 and the order of termination dated 10.7.1998. The petitioners have also prayed for interim stay of the order dated 10.7.1998 and 15.6.1998 laying them off from service. 4. The question that calls for adjudication in this case is whether the petitioners who were appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis for a particular purpose have any right to continue in service in view of the completion of the work for which they were appointed. 5. Shri B. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it will be unfair on the part of the State Govt to throw out the petitioners from service after lapse of so many years and relying on Annexure G, WT message, he argued that since the Govt requires personnels for engagement in connection with the relief operation of Reang refugees, petitioners can be well accommodated in the new project relating to Reang refugees. 6. In order to augment his case, Shri B. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has referred to the following decisions of the Apex Court: 1. (1986) 1 SCC 637 , 2. (1986) 1 SCC 639 , 3. AIR 1994 SCC 988, 4. (1990) 1GLR147 (1990 (1) GLJ 287) 5. AIR 1978 SC 597 , 6. (1991) 1 SCC 619 , 7. (1991) 1 SCC 212 , 8. (1986) 1 SCC 637 , 2. (1986) 1 SCC 639 , 3. AIR 1994 SCC 988, 4. (1990) 1GLR147 (1990 (1) GLJ 287) 5. AIR 1978 SC 597 , 6. (1991) 1 SCC 619 , 7. (1991) 1 SCC 212 , 8. AIR 1991 SC 101 . 7. The decision of the Apex Court in (1986) 1 SCC 637 and 639 deals with equal work and same conditions of service for the similarly situated employees. AIR 1994 SCC 988 deals with legitimate expectation and the scope of judicial review over administrative action. In (1990) 1 GLR 147(1990 (1) GLJ 27), the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court dealt with the validity of first and second provisos to sub-section (1) of section 20 and provisio to sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 and declared the said proviso as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution In AIR 1978 SC 597 it has been held that a statutory provision even if constitutinnallly valid, the action taken thereunder may offend fundamental right rendering the action as void. In (1991) 1SCC 619, the Supreme Court observed that “equal pay or equal work and security of service by regularising casual employees within a reasonable period has been accepted by the Court as a Constitutional goal”. In (1991) 1 SCC 212 , the termination of appointment without assigning any reason has been dealt with while in AIR 1991 SC101, the discretionary powers to dismiss a permanent employee without any guidelines or procedure has been dubbed and denounced as unconstitutinal. 8. The above decisions lay down the broad principles and the scope of the Article 14 of the Constitution vis-a-vis the extent of judicial review of administrative action. It is true that the above citations lead to the conclusion that the guarantee of equal protection empbrace within its fold entire realm of State action. The horizon of Article 14 has been thus expanded to achieve the goal of rule of law in its various facets. But the doctrine of equality emobodied in Article 14 has inbuilt flexibility and admits classification which must have an intelligible differentia. That apart, a State action which is not inform by reason is also anti-thesis to the rule of law and offends the protective umbrella of Article 14. Such action, of course, cannot be sustained in law. But the doctrine of equality emobodied in Article 14 has inbuilt flexibility and admits classification which must have an intelligible differentia. That apart, a State action which is not inform by reason is also anti-thesis to the rule of law and offends the protective umbrella of Article 14. Such action, of course, cannot be sustained in law. But in the instant case, I am not concerned with any differential treatment between similarly situated persons. The scrurtiny is limited to the question whether the ad hoc employees have any right to continue in service on the closure of the project and also whether the Court has the powers to issue directions to the State authority to regularise their service or absorb them permanently. 9. The answer to the said question is available in a latter decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Hiniachal Pradesh vs. Aswinikumar & others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 352 . The Supreme Court in that case dealt with the case of daily wage earners or muster roll labourers appointed against the Central Scheme and paid out of the fund provided by the Central Govt. The service of those employees were terminated after the scheme was closed. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh gave an interim direction to the State Govt to re-employ them elsewhere. Setting aside the order, the Apex Court held as follows : “It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non availability of funds, consequently, the employees have to go along with the closed project. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to continue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor directions be given to create posts by the State to a non existent establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them in spite of non availability of the work. We are of considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is set aside.” 10. The ratio laid down above indicates the extent to which this Court can travel while exercising its powers of judicial review. We are of considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High Court is set aside.” 10. The ratio laid down above indicates the extent to which this Court can travel while exercising its powers of judicial review. In Union of India vs. Dinesh ,Kumar Saxena & others, (1995) 3 SCC 401 , the Supreme Court, while dealing with the case of employees who had served for a long period against short-term posts and retrenched on completion of the work and on end of budgetary sanction, held that “the ends of justice will be met if the Directorate of Census Operations, UP is directed to consider those respondents who had worked temporarily in connection with the 1981 and/or 1991 census operations and were subsequently retrenched, for appointment in any regular vacancies which may arise in the Directorate of Census Operations and which can be filled by direct recruitment, if such employees are othewise qualified and eligible for these posts. For this purpose the length of temporary service of such employees in the Directorate of Census Operations should be taken into consideration for relaxing the age bar, if any, for such appointment. Suitable rules may be made and conditions laid down in this connection by the department. The department and/or the Staff Selection Commission may also consider giving weightage to the previous service rendered by such employees in the Census Department and their past service record in the Census Department for the purpose of their selection to the regular posts.” 11. The view point of the Apex Court in this matter is also available in State of Haryana & others vs. Piara Singh & others, 1992 (4) SLR 770. While dealing with the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 with reference to Article 14 and 16, the Supreme Court corrected the judgment of the High Court directing wholesome regularisation of all the employees who have put in one years service and that too unconditionally. Maintaining the ratio of Piara Singh (supra) the Supreme Court directed sympathetic consideration for regularisation of the ad hoc appointees in Director, Institute of Management Development, UP vs. Smti Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070 . The decision in Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd vs. Devendra Kumar Jain & others, reported in (1995) l'SCC 638 and in Dr. LM Nath vs Dr. The decision in Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd vs. Devendra Kumar Jain & others, reported in (1995) l'SCC 638 and in Dr. LM Nath vs Dr. SK Kacker & others, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 229 are also in tune with the ratio consistently laid in the cases cited above. 12. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is clear. Keeping the same in mind and after considering the plight of the petitioners here, I feel that these writ petitions can be disposed of with a direction of the similar nature. 13. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment in any permanent/ semi-permanent vacancies which may arise in the Directorate of Relief and Rehabilitation, Govt of Tripura, and which can be filled up by direct recruitment, if the petitioners are otherwise qualified and eligible for these posts. The length of service of the petitioners in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department should be taken into consideration for relaxing the age bar, if any, for such, appointment. Suitable rules may be made and conditions may be laid down in this connection by the said Department. The Department shall also consider giving weightage to previous services rendered by the petitioners in this Department. 14. It is also felt imperative to mention here that both the Apex Court as well as different High Courts on different occasions have denounced the practice of replacement of one ad hoc/temporary employee by another ad hoc/tempprary employee. This practice shall not be resorted to in the process to be undertaken in pursuance of this judgment.