1. Petitioner were employed by the Government on contract basis by different orders with a view to provide staff to the Member/ Convener, J&K State Autonomy Committee. The said Committee has submitted its report and stood wound up. Petitioners have been discharged. They approached the court seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accord the same treatment which has been accorded vide the Govt. order No. 1641-GAD of 1988 dated: 17-12-1988 whereby Mufti Mohammad Farad-u-Din working on contract basis as Public Relation Officer was appointed as Resident Representative Chandigarh in relaxation of rules. They seek further similar relief for their appointment in relaxation of rules as has been done by the Government under Government Order No. 162-GAD of 1998 dated: 11-12-1998 appointing Miss Atima Kachroo as Computer Operator in the General Administration Department. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and other evidence on record. The petitioners were appointed on contract basis to work as a Supervisory staff to the Autonomy Committee who has submitted its report to the Government, It was assigned a particular task and after completion of the task the Committee is not in existence and the services of the petitioners being contractual have come to an end by afflux of time. The respondents have, therefore, rightly dis-engaged the petitioners. The controversy as to whether the project/task assigned for the purpose is over, and whether the employees employed to accomplish task, can be continued in employment has been set at rest by the Apex Court in AIR 1997 SC 352 holding that:-"It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non-availability of funds, consequently, the employees have to go alongwith the closed project. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularize them or to continue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to regularize vacancies nor directions can 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 inspite of non-availability of the work.� 3. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to regularize vacancies nor directions can 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 inspite of non-availability of the work.� 3. The appointment of the petitioner being for specific period has come to an end the petitioners are not entitled to seek either regularization or continuation in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 1992 Supreme Court page 2070 holding that: Where the appointment is purely on adhoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to continue in the post. This is so even if the person is continued from time to time on adhoc basis for more than a year. He cannot claim regularization in service on basis that he was appointed on adhoc basis for more than a year.� 4. The plea of the petitioners that the respondents should accord similar treatment to the petitioners for their appointment by relaxation of rules, is also misplaced. There are no posts against which the petitioners can be adjusted in relaxation of rules. The question of relaxing the rules is within the province of the employer and the court has no jurisdiction to issue such writs unless it is made out that petitioners have enforceable right. No direction for regulation in relaxation of rules can also be issued unless there are posts as held by the Supreme Court in 1996 Supreme Court page 2226 holding that: We are of the view that the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the orders dated 27-03-1995 and 06-03-1995 and in directing that the respondents be appointed in the regular clerical posts forthwith. In the absence of a vacancy it is not open to the Corporation to appoint a person to any post. It will be a gross abuse of the powers of a public authority to appoint persons when vacancies are not available, it will be a more misuse of public funds, which is totally unauthorized.� No case for admission is made out. Petition is dismissed.