JUDGEMENT 1. We heard counsel for the appellant. 2. It is not disputed before us that the appellant has not been appointed as a regular employee in the service of the State Government. He was appointed on purely ad hoc and temporary basis and until the vacancies were filled by regular appointment. Earlier when the appellants services were dispensed with by general order dated 7th May, 1989 and the matter was challenged before this court, this court directed for reinstatement of the appointment and consequently he was reinstated in service. But later on, on scrutiny of appellants appointment, it was found that his appointment was without advertisement without publicity of the vacancies and without clearance of the roster system and, accordingly, his services have been dispensed with. 3. We find that the Single Judge considered the matter in right perspective and dismissed the writ petition. No interference is called for in the impugned order. 4. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine.