JUDGMENT : J.N.PATEL, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. This petition is filed by ten persons who were appointed as teachers in three schools run by the respondent - Shiroor Municipal Council, Ghodnadi, Taluka- Shiroor, District-Pune, on adhoc basis for the respective terms as per the appointment orders annexed to the petition. The petitioners approached this court after their services stood determined by virtue of completion of the period of their appointment. They were not reconsidered for re-appointment though the office order determining their services included a clause that as and when the primary schools for the Municipal Council will start functioning their cases would be taken up for appointment after considering their performance during previous service and, therefore, the petitioners seek that the respondents be directed to re-appoint them as teachers in the schools conducted by the first respondent and accord them pay scales as are applicable to the posts of teachers working in similar schools. They have also sought a direction from this court that the respondents should be directed to carry out pay fixation of the petitioners with effect from their date of initial appointment and to accord them all consequential benefits including increments, allowances, leave, provident fund etc., and that respondent nos 1 and 2 should be directed to give sanction to the appointment of the petitioners in the service of the first respondent. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed by respondent no.1 on purely adhoc basis on payment of a consolidated sum of Rs. 300/- per month as honorarium/salary and the period of appointment was also specifically given in the letters of appointment which are annexed to the petition. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been appointed on a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs.300/- in different schools and have not been continued so as to deprive them all the benefits which otherwise would accrue to the regular employees and that the nature of employing teachers by respondent no.1 itself goes to show that they have adopted a practice of giving break to the teachers which are purely artificial and every time their services were terminated they were informed that when the schools will be re-opened they will be reappointed. The respondents did not feel it necessary to file any return or affidavit on record. 3. The respondents did not feel it necessary to file any return or affidavit on record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the petitioners were having necessary qualifications and were appointed by respondent no.1 as primary teaches in Boys School No.1, Girls School No.2 and Urdu School No.3, their services could not have been terminated and their appointment was against clear vacancies and that they were entitled for regularisation but inspite of regularising their services against the vacancies on which they were appointed, their services were terminated which is illegal and improper. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in the given facts and circumstances the petitioners have legitimate expectation of being regularised and, that may be, because of their order of appointment and termination described them as adhoc appointees, the order of termination clearly provides that they will be reappointed when the schools re-open after assessing their performance during the period they were employed as teachers. 5. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited three decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, i.e., in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors Vs Umadevi and ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , Mineral Exploration Corpn Employees’ Union Vs. Mineral Exploration Corpn Ltd and Anr, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 310 , and Ram Pravesh Singh and ors Vs. State of Bihar and ors, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 381 . It is submitted that the petitioners deserve to be reinstated in service by way of regularisation and for all other ancillary reliefs like fixation of pay scales, allowances, leave etc to which the municipal teachers are entitled by way of legitimate expectation. 6. In reply it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal council that accepting the petitioners case as it is, the petition deserves to be dismissed even if the facts go uncontroverted. It is submitted that the petitioners have not placed on record any document to show that their appointment was against permanent vacancies of teachers in the municipal schools. It is submitted that the petitioners have not placed on record any document to show that their appointment was against permanent vacancies of teachers in the municipal schools. It is submitted that the appointment letter which has been issued by the President of respondent no.1 -Municipal Council, clearly indicates that the Municipal Council passed a Resolution to appoint teachers on adhoc basis to meet requirement of teachers as two new schools were opened and there was a need to appoint teachers. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners having required qualifications were appointed purely on adhoc basis for fixed term and on fixed honorarium/salary, and therefore they cannot claim any right of regularisation as the appointment was not against any permanent vacancy in the Municipal Council. It is further submitted that most of the petitioners, by this time, would have attained the age of superannuation and that if the reliefs sought for by the petitioners are granted it would be unnecessary burden on the Municipal council without any justification and legal right on the basis of which the petitioners are claiming to be regularised in the service and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We find that though the petitioners have claimed regularisation in service, it is not a contentious issue for the simple reason that the appointment letter which is annexed to the petition clearly spells out the terms and conditions on which the petitioners were appointed under the signature of the President of the Municipal Council. The appointment letter clearly states that their appointment is for a particular term and on consolidated salary of Rs.300/- p.m. and that it is purely on adhoc basis. Similarly, the office order which informs them that their services stand determined, also says that as the appointment was made for the purpose of meeting the contingency and by way of alternate arrangement their services have been determined and on re-opening of the schools if their services are required then they may be reconsidered for appointment on the basis of their previous performance under further arrangement to be made in this regard. 8. In our view, this order of termination, in the first place, does not create any vested right in the petitioners. 8. In our view, this order of termination, in the first place, does not create any vested right in the petitioners. The petitioners were well aware at the very time of appointment that they were appointed on adhoc basis and on a consolidated honorarium/salary of Rs.300/- per month for a particular period and that their services would stand terminated on the expiry of the period. 9. The claim of the petitioners to regularise their appointment, pay scales, allowances, like leave salary, provident fund etc, also cannot be considered as the petitioners themselves accepted their appointment on consolidated sum of Rs.300/- per month and therefore the terms of contract do not make them eligible for such regularisation on their appointment which was on purely adhoc basis. Therefore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to their case. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to state as to whether the respondent-Municipal Council got any approval or sanction from the State Government for vacancies of teachers and whether posts on which the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis were filled in and if so whether the petitioners applied for appointment against such vacancies notified by the Municipal Council. In the facts and circumstances we do not find that the petitioners have any case for being regularised as claimed by them in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Rule discharged.