JUDGMENT Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties for final disposal. 2. Petitioners have prayed for direction upon the respondents to allow them to continue in their services as they had been prior to 22.8.2002. 3. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, mainly submitted that the petitioners were not given any show cause notice before termination. He also submitted that even in case of termination for unsatisfactory performance, the deficiency should have been informed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that petitioners were not working against any sanctioned post. There were no posts of Gardner or Sweeper. Therefore, they cannot claim any right to continue. Moreover they were disengaged due to unsatisfactory service. 5. Petitioner No. 1 was engaged on 17.8.1996 as Gardner on daily wage basis, by the Civil court. On the request of the District and Sessions Judge, Godda, the State Government permitted him to engage two-three persons on contract basis by Annexure C letter. Pursuant thereto, petitioners were engaged temporarily on contract basis on 7.7.1999. An advertisement was made by the High Court for appointment to Class IV posts. The petitioners applied and they were called for interview for the post of Peons on 4.5.2002 and 25.4.2002 respectively but they were not selected by the appointment committee. They were disengaged on 22.8.2002 without any show cause, but without any stigma also. However, in the counter affidavit, it has been disclosed and shown that their services were not satisfactory. They were not working against any sanctioned post. They were working on temporary/contract basis. Neither in Annexure C letter by which State Government permitted such engagement nor in their letters of engagement, there is any term on the basis of which petitioners can claim right to continue with such employment. 6. The cases relied on behalf of the petitioners are no help. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr. (1986)IILLJ171SC, Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Ors. (1991)ILLJ395SC and West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh and Ors. (1985)ILLJ373SC relates to the cases of permanent employees. Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India and Ors. (1989)IILLJ228SC relates to an adhoc appointment against substantive vacancy. Even the last portion of paragraph 23 of the judgment in the case of The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and Anr. v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh and Ors. (1985)ILLJ373SC relates to the cases of permanent employees. Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India and Ors. (1989)IILLJ228SC relates to an adhoc appointment against substantive vacancy. Even the last portion of paragraph 23 of the judgment in the case of The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and Anr. v. D.B. Belliappa (1979)ILLJ156SC reads as follows: The principle that can be deduced from the above analysis is that if the services of a temporary Government servant are terminated in accordance with the conditions of his service on the ground of unsatisfactory conduct or his unsuitability for the job and/or for his work being unsatisfactory or for alike reason which marks him off a class apart from other temporary servants who have been retained in service, there is no question of the applicability of Art. 16. 7. On the other hand, the respondents relied on the following judgments. In the recent Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. (2006)IILLJ722SC , it has been, inter alia, held that only because an employee engaged on temporary/contract basis has continued for a considerable length of time, he does not acquire any right over the post. It has been further held that it is not as if the person who accepts such engagement, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. Such employments are made as per the exigency of work, by which at least some people get some employment on temporary/contractual/casual basis. Following such view, I am of the opinion that if it is held that in such cases also, show cause notice is required for dispensing with the services, the employers will hesitate in engaging persons temporarily/on contract basis, due to which the work and employment both will suffer. 8. In the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007)1SCC408 , it has been inter alia held that a temporary employee has no right to the post. 9. In the Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Nand Kishore Raut and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1991) 1 BLTR 441, inter-alia, it has been held in paragraph 12 that Further, the appointments were purely temporary and officiating and on ad hoc basis. 9. In the Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Nand Kishore Raut and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1991) 1 BLTR 441, inter-alia, it has been held in paragraph 12 that Further, the appointments were purely temporary and officiating and on ad hoc basis. Such appointments do not create any right on the incumbents and the principle of natural justice does not apply to cases like this. 10. In the facts and circumstances and the judgments noticed above, the contentions of Mr. Sinha cannot be accepted. The respondents cannot be directed to continue the petitioners on non-sanctioned posts, who were engaged on contract basis temporarily. 11. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.