RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Research Assistant/research Investigator/field Investigator in any of its projects. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad on the following posts during the periods mentioned against each post on a consolidated salary : 4. The appointment of the petitioner, as stated above, was fully temporary and for a specified. The chart given in paragraph 3 itself shows that the petitioner was engaged in different projects from time to time for a period specified in the above chart. 5. In Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur (M. P.) v. Bal Krishan Soni and others, (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 86, the apex Court has held that the staff employed in a sponsored project cannot be regularized and the posts under project could continue only till the scheme existed. The apex Court in paragraph 3 for the aforesaid judgment has further held that permanent posts cannot be created under the sponsored scheme and are coterminous with the scheme. On abolition of the scheme, the posts are necessarily stand obsolesced and the employees could not be claimed for their regularisation. 6. In State of H. P. through the Secretary Agriculture to the Government of H. P. Shimla v. Nodha Ram and others, 1998 Supreme Court Cases (L and R) 478, the apex Court has held that : "when the project is completed and closed due to non-availability of funds, the employees have go alongwith its closure. 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 their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-existing establishment. The Court should adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non- availability of the work. The directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting the Supreme Courts interference. " 7. Recently in Karnataka State Co-op. The Court should adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non- availability of the work. The directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting the Supreme Courts interference. " 7. Recently in Karnataka State Co-op. Apex Bank Ltd. v. Y. S. Shetty and others, 2000 Supreme Court Cases (L and S) 377, it has been held by the apex Court that the terms and conditions of project and appointments are governed by appointment letters and the agreements entered by respondents and the employees appointed under the project have no right on the permanent posts in the appellant Bank particularly when their appointments were made for specified project and as such their claim for being absorbed as Assistant Managers was also without any basis. 8. In Karnataka State Co-op. apex Bank Ltd. (supra), the respondents however, pointed out that there were certain posts against which they could be accommodated and granted them liberty to submit their representations to the appellant Bank for considering their case keeping in view their training, qualifications, experience and eligibility for the said posts. 9. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been appointed for a specified period in the project and has worked there till 31-12-1990. The Counsel for the petitioner states that looking to the training qualifications, experience and eligibility of the petitioner, the institute may engage him in any project. The Counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner may be permitted to make an application for appointment in a project subject to suitability experience and eligibility as required. 10. It is settled law that when the posts are created for purposes of the project and the project is completed, the temporary employees have no right to permanent post in the project particularly when their appointments were made for a specified period or till the completion of the project. This Court cannot give any direction to regularize their services on abolition of the project nor give any direction to create posts in the project. 11. This Court cannot give any direction to regularize their services on abolition of the project nor give any direction to create posts in the project. 11. In view of the above position of law, and considering the request of the Counsel for the petitioner the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents that if there is any post in any project under any scheme in which the petitioner can be accommodated, they may consider him for appointment, if he applies for the same keeping in view his training, qualification, experience and eligibility required for the post. No order as to costs. Petition disposed of. .