Judgment :- Markandey Katju, CJ. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 22.12.2004. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The appellant had been given an appointment for three years as Senior Resident on 28.10.1995 in the respondent Corporation. The last contract appointment was on 30.11.2001 for three years. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant should be allowed to continue. 4. We are afraid we cannot issue any such direction. The appellant was being given contract appointment for three years at a time. The appellant cannot claim that she was a permanent appointee. In service jurisprudence it is well settled that while a permanent appointee has a right to the post, a temporary appointee has no right to the post vide State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla ( 1991(1) SCC 691 ). Under the general category of temporary appointee there are several sub-categories e.g. casual appointee, daily wage appointee, ad hoc appointee, contract appointee etc. These are all sub-categories of the general category of a temporary appointee and it is well settled that a temporary appointee has no right to the post. Since the appellant is not a permanent appointee she cannot claim any right to continue in the post. Hence we cannot issue any such direction as prayed for by the appellant. 5. However, we direct that any application which the appellant makes or has already made for continuance as Senior Resident will be considered by the respondents at an early date. With this direction, the writ appeal is disposed off. Consequently WAMP No.94 of 2005 is closed.