Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal arises out of a litigation which has ensued the order issued by District collector and Chairman, District Women Development Authority, Bikaner dated February 28, 1998 by which the services of petitioner-appellant were terminated on the ground that no information about the lien on the parent department has been received. The petitioners were appointed as Prachetas in pursuance of an Advertisement dated December 18, 1998 issued by Director, District Women Development Authority, Bikaner on different dates. All the petitioners had been appointed on contract basis and not on deputation. From the various orders produced with the writ petition giving appointments to different persons as Prachetas under the department shows that those incumbents who have been in the employment of the State whether in schools under control of Panchayat Samiti or otherwise or in other Government departments were given appointment on deputation whereas persons having experience of serving in private institutions were given appointments on contract basis. We nave noticed that all the petitioners-appellants were given appointments on contract basis. On the aforesaid premises the petition was filed challenging that the holding of lien in the case of private employment was not the condition of service for want of which the services could be terminated. Nor the petitioners were appointed on deputation from a Government Department so that the principle of lien could be applied for further continuance of the services of such persons. 2. The services have been terminated in pursuance of order issued by Director, Women and Child Development Dept. Rajasthan, Jaipur dated November 7, 1997 that before continuing with the services of Prachetas at any place it should be verified whether they have lien in their parent department or not. Only services of such Prachetas who hold lien in their parent department be continued. Those who do not hold lien in their parent department their services may be terminated forthwith in pursuance of this order dated November 27, 1997, The impugned order Annexure 6 was made on February 28, 1998. 3. Only services of such Prachetas who hold lien in their parent department be continued. Those who do not hold lien in their parent department their services may be terminated forthwith in pursuance of this order dated November 27, 1997, The impugned order Annexure 6 was made on February 28, 1998. 3. Apparently the learned single Judge has disposed off the writ petition by setting aside the order of termination dated February 28, 1998 by directing the respondents to give the petitioners an opportunity for furnishing the copy of the lien certificate and if the incumbent fails to produce the said certificate respondents may justify in terminating the services and if the lien certificate has already been produced the same may be examined. 4. Thus the impugned order has already been set aside. The appellant is aggrieved with the directions issued. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents we are of the opinion that in the very state of affairs in the matter the requirement of furnishing lien can only be applied to those incumbents who were appointed on deputation from different Government departments and it cannot be made applicable to those who were appointed on holding requisite experience from private institutions and they were appointed on contract basis. The services of those who were appointed on contract basis were not in continuance of their past services, therefore, the question of lien is irrelevant. It can justifiably be said that deputation of such persons alone was to be continued who are having a permanent appointment in their parent department. But, the same principle cannot be extended to other employees who are not on deputation and their service is not in continuation from past service at parent post. Accordingly, the direction given by learned single Judge for examining the certificate of lien in the case of those who have not been appointed on deputation and were serving in the Government department was not justified. Those directions are therefore set aside. 6. Thecontinuance of services on expiry of the current period obviously is not subject matter of this writ petition and if any dispute arises about termination of the services on expiry of the period for which they have been appointed is independent of the issues raised in this appeal and parties shall not be affected by this order.