Hon'ble PARIHAR, J.—Since on same set of facts common order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Admittedly, both the respondents have been appointed as Assistant Professors in the Department of Anesthesia and Senior Demonstrator in the Department of Pathology respectively in the month of September, 1995 purely on urgent temporary basis for a fixed period or till regularly selected candidates are made available through Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short `the RPSC'). The period of ad hoc temporary appointment was extended from time to time. It is also not in dispute that both the respondents had participated in the regular process of selection undertaken by the RPSC for the respective so notified. However, not been selected, services of both the respondents came to be terminated vide order dated 15.7.1998. The order of termination came to be challenged by the respondents before this court. While allowing the writ petitions by the common impugned order dated 21.11.2002, the learned Single Judge set aside the termination orders dated 15.7.1998 and ordered for their continuance in service. It appears that learned Single Judge granted the relief to the respondents mainly on the ground that some of the vacancies are still lying vacant in the department and the respondents-petitioners could be continued on such vacant posts. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully gone through material on record. 4. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge while setting aside the termination orders appear to be unreasonable and not in accordance with law. Once having failed in getting selected by the RPSC the respondents had no right to continue in service, more so, when there was a specific condition in the letter of appointment itself that the initial appointment had been purely on ad hoc temporary basis till regularly selected candidates made available. Even if some vacancies still exist after due selection by the RPSC the appointment on such vacancies could be made as per provisions of the relevant rules on permanent basis or temporary basis after the same been duly advertised either by the RPSC or the department, as the case may be. Even if some vacancies still exist after due selection by the RPSC the appointment on such vacancies could be made as per provisions of the relevant rules on permanent basis or temporary basis after the same been duly advertised either by the RPSC or the department, as the case may be. The respondents could also have applied afresh for fresh selections as and when the same are so made but they have right for continuance as held by the learned Single Judge. As and when such vacancies are notified for either mode there may be fresh candidates available at the relevant time and who may be more meritorious than the candidates earlier appointed on urgent temporary basis. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 21.12.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents were allowed to continue on the posts in question as per interim order passed by this Court. One of the respondents - Dr. Sanjay Kalani has already been duly selected by the RPSC. The above respondent-Dr. Sanjay Kalani cannot claim any benefits of continuous service since he has been continued only as per interim order passed by this Court. So far as other respondent-Dr. Khemraj is concerned, the appellants are given liberty to pass fresh orders if his services are not required. 5. Both the appeal are disposed of accordingly.