Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit Singh, learned counsel for the appellants/respondents in the writ petition. Despite notice to the writ petitioners, none appears for the respondents/writ petitioners to contest this writ appeal. 2. Present writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.5.2000 passed in W.P(C )No.563 of 2000. It appears the writ petitioners were appointed as Graduate Teachers initially for a period of 3(three) months or until the posts were filled up on regular basis, however they were kept in deployment subsequently for sometimes in reference to the extension orders. However when their deployment was not extended, the writ petitioners approached this court seeking direction for continuance in service on contractual deployment till their regularization. Writ petition was disposed of with direction to the state authorities to allow the writ petitioners to continue as Graduate Teachers until the posts held by them are filled up on regular basis. 3. Since in identical circumstances this court (D/B ) has disposed of a Writ Appeal No.61/2002(GAU)/135/2001 (IMP) arising against an order dated 9.5.2000 passed in C.R.No.516 of 2000 with the following observations: “ By this writ appeal the appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 9.5.2000 passed in C.R. No.516 of 2000 by the learned Single Judge of this court whereby and wherein the learned Single Judge directed the Respondents/appellant herein to continue the respondent/petitioner to hold the post till the posts is filled up on regular basis. We find it difficult to sustain the matter for more than one reasons, firstly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not contain any reason whatsoever as to how and under what circumstances the learned Single Judge arrived at such conclusion that the continuation of the respondent herein in the post would meet or satisfy public interest. The impugned order is more in the nature of a decree compelling the appellant to act in a particular manner; and secondly, the respondent/writ petitioner has no right to hold the post till the post is filled up on regular basis. It is not the case of the respondent/writ petitioner that she is being replaced in order to accommodate another candidate on ad hoc basis in the same institution which would have been a different situation.” 4. It is not the case of the respondent/writ petitioner that she is being replaced in order to accommodate another candidate on ad hoc basis in the same institution which would have been a different situation.” 4. In our respectful consideration the present writ appeal could be disposed of in terms of the above order dated 20.12.2005 of this court passed in W.A.No.61/2002(GAU)/135/2001(IMP). 5. In view of the above observations, we find it difficult to sustain the order dated 17.5.2000 passed in W.P(C) No.563 of 2000 which suffers from legal infirmity. The order of learned Single Judge dated 17.5.2005 is accordingly set aside. Writ Appeal is allowed.