JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. G.K. Vyas learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jagdish Vyas learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks directions to the respondent Mohanlal Sukhadia University to consider his candidature for regular appointment on the post of Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Physics w.e.f. his initial appointment. 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer on purely ad hoc basis for the Session 1988-89 or till the duly selected candidates are made available. The petitioner was given such ad hoc appointment for the different sessions. The last appointment was made vide Annexure-14 dated 30th June, 1993. On expiry of the term, he was not given fresh appointment for the Sessions 1994-95 as the regularly selected candidates were made available. It may be stated that the service conditions of a Teacher in the respondent University is governed by Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1984). As per the provisions of the Act of 1984, no teacher can be appointed on regular basis unless he is selected by the Statutory Selection Committee constituted under the Act. The petitioner also appeared before the Selection Board and he was found unsuitable. 4. It is contended by Mr. G.K. Vyas that there were still vacancies for temporary appointment against which he could have been continued on ad hoc basis. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors. reported in 1992(4) SCC Page 153 , wherein it has been laid down that an ad hoc or temporary employee can be replaced by only regularly selected employee. In the said case, it was directed to the Government to formulate a scheme for regularisation of the services of the temporary Lecturers, who have rendered 3 years service with breaks by subjecting them to suitability through the medium of screening committee. 5. I have read the judgment carefully. In the said case, it was directed to the Government to formulate a scheme for regularisation of the services of the temporary Lecturers, who have rendered 3 years service with breaks by subjecting them to suitability through the medium of screening committee. 5. I have read the judgment carefully. The said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case rules for recruitment were under consideration of the State Government and till the finalisation of the rules, regular selections were not possible and as such it was asserted that short term appointments were required to be made in order to meet the dire necessity of the teachers. In the instant case, the rules already exist. There is no such difficulty as existed in the Haryana case referred to above. That apart, there is no rules for such sort of regularisation. In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.) reported in 1992(4) SCC Page 33 , the Apex Court held that in appointment made on ad hoc basis for a specified period comes to an end by efflux of time, the employee has no right to continue on the post and claim regularisation in service in absence of any rule providing for regularisation after the specified period of service. 6. In view of aforesaid settled legal position of law, the petitioner has no right to claim appointment on the post of Lecturer on ad hoc basis particularly when he has appeared before the Selection Committee and has not been found fit. 7. Consequently, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******