Honble MADAN, J.–The question which arises for consideration of this court in this writ petition is (a) as to whether where an appointment of an employee has been made in services of the State Government on temporary basis and the nature of the said appointment is contractual for a fixed duration or where the said appointment is for a short duration till the completion of a particular project as in the instant case, whether the said employee is entitled to continuation in services of the department where his appointment is made beyond the contractual period of services and if so whether he can claim continuity in services as a matter of legal right ? (b) and whether it is open to such a temporary appointee to claim continuity in service beyond the stipulated period particularly when he has failed to avail al- ternative remedy available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as "the Act") in view of disputed questions of fact which require adjudication by evidence before an appropriate Forum? and (c) whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be held maintainable notwithstanding the petitioner having failed to avail the said alternative remedy in accordance with law as per the provisions of the Act as amended? (2). The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition before this court briefly stated are that the then Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer (for short ``UIT), respondent No. 2 herein, in pursuance of the advertisement published through the Employment Exchange, Ajmer on 24.3.1991 had invited applications from suitable and eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Junior Engineers (JENs) in accordance with Rules as applicable to respondent U.1.T (Ajmer). The petitioner being one of the eligible candidates applied for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer and after having been interviewed by the Selection Committee duly constituted by respondent No.2 was given appointment on the said post on tempo- rary basis. It is pertinent to mention that besides the petitioner atleast 107 candida- tes has appeared before the Selection Committee. It is pertinent to mention that besides the petitioner atleast 107 candida- tes has appeared before the Selection Committee. The case of the petitioner is that his appointment was made on the basis of his request vide his application moved before the UIT on 19.3.1991 and after considering the suitability of the petitioner qua ---- candidates who had appeared before the Selection Committee, a decision was taken on 26.2.1992 by the UIT to appoint the petitioner on the post of J.E.N.on temporary basis at the rate of Rs.50/- per day as a daily wager. His initial appointment was for a period of two months as is clearly reflected from the appointment order dated 20.3.1992 itself from the perusal of which it is further apparent that his service shall stand terminated immediately after expiry of two months w.e.f. 20.3.1992 unless extended by the UIT Thereafter the terms of his temporary appoint- ment were further extended for another period of two months w.e.f. 20.5.1992 to 10.7.1992 vide order, dated 24.8.1992 (Annexure 3). Subsequently another order came to be passed by the UIT on 7.8.1992 vide (Annexure 4) whereby the terms of his temporary appointment were further extended till further orders. This order of extension was made effective w.e.f. 23.7.1992. (3). It has been contended by the petitioner that the wages of the petitioner were increased from Rs. 50/- per day to Rs.85/- per day as per the revised rates as applicable to the employees of U.I.T. It has further been contended by the petitioner that all of a sudden an order was issued by respondent No. 2 on 28.1.1994 vide (Annexure 5) whereby the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on the ground that since the sanction for temporary posts was given by the State Government upto 31.8.1993 only and since the said sanction had not been extended beyond 31.8.1993 it had not been possible for the UIT to retain the petitioner in services of the department beyond the said period. The wages for the period in dispute were duly paid to the petitioner upto 31.1.1994 and the petitioner has not raised any dispute as regards the payment of wages or any other benefits which may be admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. The wages for the period in dispute were duly paid to the petitioner upto 31.1.1994 and the petitioner has not raised any dispute as regards the payment of wages or any other benefits which may be admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. His only grievance is that no opportunity of hearing was given to him prior to the passing of the impugned order, dated 28.1.1994 by which the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of non-availability of sanction for such temporary posts be- yond 31.8.1993 from the State Government of Rajasthan and since the petitioner had been retained in services of the UIT, Ajmer by virtue of extensions given to him from time to time he was entitled as of right to have continued in services of respondent No. 2 beyond the aforesaid period notwithstanding the receipt of sanction from the State Government. His further grievance is that some permanent posts of JENs were lying vacant in UIT as on the date of presentation of the writ petition before the date of this court (vide Annexure 7) dated 14.4.1987 and the petitioner could have been suitably considered for regularisation and continuation of his service as JEN but that has purposely not been done by the respondents and hence there was no justification in terminating his services by the impugned order dated 28.1.1994 and which deserves to be quashed and set-aside. His further grievance is that the impugned order is violative of his fundamental rights given to him by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and the said right cannot be taken away without following the procedure established by law. (4). In reply to show cause notice the respondents have contended in their re- ply on merits regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that the petitioner had failed to challenge the order of termination which had been passed after making full compliance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, then he had the opportunity of availing the said alternative remedy under the relevant provisions of the Act which is still available to him and since he had failed to follow the said procedure, the writ petition deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. (5). If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, then he had the opportunity of availing the said alternative remedy under the relevant provisions of the Act which is still available to him and since he had failed to follow the said procedure, the writ petition deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. (5). As regards the contention of the petitioner regarding availability of some permanent posts of JEN with UIT, the said contention has been specifically controverted by the respondents on the ground that since no appointment was made by the UIT on the post of J.E.N.s after terminating the services of the petitioner and since they were not in need of candidates for their appointment on permanent post, therefore, with a view to avoid extra-financial burden, a decisions was taken by the department not to declare the result of the interview of those candidates who had been interviewed for the said purpose and consequently no further appointments were made by the UIT and, therefore, the petitioner should have no grievance to advance either before the UIT or before this court by way of the instant writ petition. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position on the subject. (7). Prima-facie I am of the considered view that once appointment of a candidate has been made on temporary basis for a specified period of fixed duration, such employee has no justification in raising his grievance if the extension is not made beyond the specified period even if temporary extensions have been given by the department looking to the exigencies of the work from time to time and as per the requirements of the concerned department to be retained automatically as of right beyond the specified period, since it is always the discretion of the employer to continue or to dispense with the services of such an employee who has been given appointment on temporary basis. As a matter of fact the position as regards his temporary appointment which is reflected from the initial order of app- ointment vide (Annexure 1) which was further extended for her two months by virtue to temporary extension given from time to time and which finally culminated in passing of the impugned order of termination, dated 28.1.1994 vide (Annexure 5), explicitly makes it clear that since the State Government has not given any sanction to retain the petitioner in service of the UIT beyond the specified period, i.e. 31.8.1993 at par with other similarly placed employees, the petitioner has obviously no legal right to claim continuity in service of the UIT. I am further of the view that the document Annexure 7 dated 14.7.1987 which is a part of internal correspondence between the State Government and the U.I.T. (Ajmer) does not confer any right to the petitioner on the basis of which he can claim continuity in services of respondent U.I.T. since it merely indicates that as on the date of issuance of the said letter i.e. 14.4.1987, five sanctioned posts of J.E.N.s were available in the office of respondent No. 2 as per budget sanction for the year 1987-88, but is certainly not indicative of the fact that the said vacancies were available for being filled up as on 28.1.1994 when the impugned order (Annexure 5) was passed by which the services of the petitioner stood automatically terminated alongwith similarly placed employees. Hence, it is not the petitioner alone who has been discriminated or singled out for any hostile discrimination. It is well settled proposition of law that it is always open to the State to make reasonable classification for the purposes a regards applicability of a particular legislation or even a Departmen- tal order passed on the said basis which would not be held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (8). As a matter of fact the petitioner had committed a deliberate lapse by not availing the alternative remedy by having resort to the provisions of the Act and had instead preferred to file a writ petition directly in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (8). As a matter of fact the petitioner had committed a deliberate lapse by not availing the alternative remedy by having resort to the provisions of the Act and had instead preferred to file a writ petition directly in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Full Bench of this court vide its judgment in the matter of Gopal Lal Teli vs. State of Rajasthan (1) has very clearly observed that where an alternative remedy is available to an employee under the Act and if he has failed to avail that remedy, he is not entitled to claim the relief of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by approaching this court directly by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence I am of the considered view that since the very appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis for a specified period and since his services were not regularised by the UIT as a JEN nor extended beyond the specified period as above and since the petitioner had accepted the appointment on the said post with full knowledge of the implications thereof, the petitioner is not entitled to claim continuity in service beyond the expiry of the temporary extensions in service given to him from time to time and obviously he cannot claim continuity in service in absence of sanction for such posts from the State Government. It has already been stated that the petitioner was not appoin- ted by a method of regular selection and he is obviously no right to continue in service of UIT beyond the specified period and the impugned order, (Annexure 5), by which the services of the petitioner were terminated subject to the settlement of his accounts regarding payment of wages due and admissible to the petitioner in lieu of the notice period as per Section 25F (b) of the Act, the impugned order is not open to challenge and deserves to be sustained by this court. I am further of the view that since the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary in nature and was not made against the substantive sanctioned post and since his services were not regularised by the respondents beyond the stipulated period, the fact regarding continuity of his service by virtue of temporary extension given to him from time to time would not by itself confer any legal and vested right to the petitioner to claim continuity in service of UIT which if extended would obviously be contrary to the provisions of law and the Act. (9). During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in Rajendra Kumar Rawat etc. etc. vs. State of Rajasthan. (2), Lecturers Forum vs. State of Rajasthan (3), State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Piara Singh & Ors. (4) and Mrs. Anita Kothari etc. etc. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (5). (10). I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decision and in my considered opinion they are neither attracted nor applicable to the facts of the instant case. In my view of the transcription regarding the regularisation of the services of a government servant who had been continued on ad hoc basis for a long spell to time as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Piara Singh and Ors. (supra) is not applicable to the instant case for the reason that before issuance of any direction for regularisation in service of an employee, the court must ensure that as to whether from the nature of initial order of appointment any case is made out in favour of an employee for the purpose of regularising his services and in this respect due regard must be had to the nature of sanctioned post before permitting regularisation in service of an employee and no appointment against permanent vacancy should be made in absence of the sanctioned post. If the sanctioned posts are not available, the extension in service by virtue of regularisation against the temporary appointment cannot be claimed by an employee as a matter of right. In the instant case admittedly the appointment of the petitioner on the post of JEN was purely a temporary appointment for a fixed duration of two months initially vide order, dated 20.3.1992 as a daily wager. In the instant case admittedly the appointment of the petitioner on the post of JEN was purely a temporary appointment for a fixed duration of two months initially vide order, dated 20.3.1992 as a daily wager. However, the services of the petitioner were extended by first extension order dated 24.8.1992 vide (Annexure 3) for the period 20.5.1992 to 10.7.1992 and the second extension for the same duration of two months was extended to the petitioner by order dated 7.8.1992 made effective w.e.f. 23.7.1992 vide (Annexure 4). Finally vide the impugned order dated 28.1.1994 (Annex. 5) the services of the petitioner stood termi- nated subject to the settlement of his dues as per the conditions stipulated in the said order which too were made available for the benefit of the petitioner in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act more particularly 25F for payment of wages amounting to Rs.6885.00 (consolidated) in lieu of one months notice, retrenchment compensation and wages for the month of January, 1994. In my view the respondents have fully complied with the relevant provisions of the Act and had very rightly extended the benefit of the same by offering compensation as well as other dues as lawfully admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act and if the petitioner has not availed the benefit of the same before approaching this court by way of instant writ petition, he is entitled claim the same from respondent No. 2 (UIT) if not already availed. (11). I am further of the view that the relief regarding regularisation of the services as per the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh (supra) as well as other decisions of this court with refere- nce to the above, is not available to the petitioner since the petitioner as per his own case has not made any specific prayer for regularisation of his services. The sole grievance is that since no other regularly recruited JEN had been appointed against the said post which had fallen vacant on account of reversion of one Shri Shanker Seablani, there was no justification in terminating the services of the peti- tioner vide the impugned order, referred to above. The sole grievance is that since no other regularly recruited JEN had been appointed against the said post which had fallen vacant on account of reversion of one Shri Shanker Seablani, there was no justification in terminating the services of the peti- tioner vide the impugned order, referred to above. In my view this by itself cannot be a ground for invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and in absence of violation of any fundamental rights under Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution no such right would automatically flow in favour of the petitioner to approach this court. (12). I am fortified in my observations from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Kumar Rawat and Ors. (6) wherein the Apex Court has observed that merely on the basis of creating financial provision in the budget to meet expenses for the posts would not by itself oblige the Government to fill up the vacancies and hence no writ of mandamus can be issued compelling the government to do so since making provision in the budget will be itself not make it obligatory for the State Government to fill up the vacancies available and even if there is failure on the part of the State Government to do so, no writ can be issued to the Government to fill up the said posts. In this case services of the Legal Assistants who were temporarily appointed in officiating capacity, were terminated in accordance with the rules pursuant to the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. Thereafter services stood terminated in accordance with the rules pursuant to the regular selection made by the R.P.S.C. It was held by the Apex Court that the petitioners who were temporary appointees and whose services stood terminated in accordance with the rules had no right or jus- tification to claim continuity in service as against the regular selections which had been made by the State Government on the said post. (13). (13). If the document (Annexure 5) dated 28.1.1994 is read in consonance with the document Annexure 7 which is a part of rejoinder of the petitioner in reply to reply to show cause notice filed by the respondents it will be apparent that there were five vacancies of JENs available with the respondents as on 14.4.1987 as per the budgetary sanction for the year 1987-88 which obviously implies that unless the budgetary sanction was received from the State Government in the office of respondent No. 2 for extension of the services of JENs beyond the said period, their services should not have been automatically extended in absence of sanction from the State Government for the said posts. Rather from the perusal of Annexure 5 it is apparent that budgetary sanction for the said post was received by the UIT, Ajmer only upto 31.8.1993 and since no sanction was received for the said posts beyond the said period, the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated in accordance with the provisions of law. This fact has been highlighted by the respondents in their reply to show cause notice wherein they have specifically stated that in absence of budgetary sanction beyond the aforesaid period the services of the JENs could not be extended. Since said post stood abolished with the department, as such the respondents were left with no option but to terminate the services of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law as is evident from the perusal of reply to para 14(c) of the petitioner. I am further of the view that Article 21 does not guarantee extension of a temporary post which is for a fixed duration in absence of due sanction from the State Government and in such circumstances the only resort which can be made by the UIT, Ajmer is to Section 25F of the Act and the impugned order Annexure 4 is perfectly right and having been passed in accordance with the said provisions by which the compensation including retrenchment and other compensatory benefits were offered to the petitioner. (14). As a result of the above discussion I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. (14). As a result of the above discussion I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. It is left open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy by approaching appropriate forum in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act if not already availed in accordance with law for the relief of such benefits as may be admissible to him in pursuance of the impugned order dated 28.1.1994 by which the services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondents. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum viz. the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal within a period of three months from today & in that event limitation on account of delay or latches shall not come in his way. It is further directed that if any post of JEN is still lying vacant as of today or is likely to be created in near future then the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for the same in accordance with the Rules and in that event the respondents shall have due regard to the candidature of the petitioner to avail the benefit of his service rendered to the UIT, Ajmer in the past during the period prior to the termination of his services. This observation is made keeping in view the fact that the employees whose services have been terminated for not fault attributed to them on the principle of No fault liability and the reason for termination is only on account of non-availabi- lity of the sanctioned posts by the State Government, such employees should not be made to suffer and be rendered jobless which would result in vagrancy, which is not a good sign for a welfare State and would obviously be violative of their right to gainful employment guaranteed under Article 16 and right to livelihood which is integral part of right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further directed that in the event of sanction being accorded by the State Government for creation of the post of JENs in UIT (Ajmer), due intimation shall be given to the petitioner and, all other such candidates, who may be similarly placed like the petitioner by publication in leading Newspaper or by way of perusal communication by the respondents and who shall in that event have preferential right for due consideration for being considered for appointment on the said post along with the other candidates from open market.