JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- i) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to continue the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) with all consequential benefits; ii) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the termination of the services of the petitioner and not extending the term as illegal and setting aside the same; iii)to issue any other order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner; iv)to award the cost of this writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 2. The factual matrix of the petitioner's case, in short is thus:- That the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in the service of the Municipal Board, Dholpur on 27th May, 1993. The Collector, Dholpur, who happened to be the Chairman of the Integrated Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns Scheme (in short 'IDSMT'), accorded sanction vide order dated 1st June, 1993 to appoint the petitioner on the said post. It has been averred that the non-petitioners extended his period of service from time to time and last extension was given in the year 1995 as a result of which he continued to work till 2nd September, 1995. His services were terminated on 25th September, 1995. It is alleged that the non-petitioners were employing the retired person in his place, whereas he had more experience to work and better claim to be continued. 3. The petitioner has filed the writ petition on the following grounds:- a) that the act of the non-petitioners to replace the petitioner by the retired person is illegal, which amounts to malice in law. b) that when the work is continuing, an Ad hoc employee cannot be removed from the work till it is completed. c) that the action of the non-petitioners is in contravention of the provisions of Rule 27 of Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate and Munisterial Service) Rules, 1963, which clearly lay down that if a temporary appointment is continued for more than one year, he shall be referred to a Commission for its concurrence and it is only when the Commission refuses to concur, the services can be terminated. d) that the non-petitioners compelled the petitioner to write a resignation letter before extension of his term of appointment. e) that the action of the non-petitioners is also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. The non-petitioners while raising preliminary objections have replied that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was engaged on contract basis for conducting survey of the najul land of Municipal Board under the Scheme of IDSMT. The post of Junior Engineer is a Commission post which could only be filled up by the Commission in accordance with the rules. Since, the petitioner was engaged on daily basis or on contract basis and his employment was not regular, no legal or vested right accrued to him, with regard to his employment on the said post. The non-petitioners have further replied that the appointment of the petitioner was for a fixed term of one month, though it was extended again for a fixed term only of 30 days. His appointment was made only for the execution of IDSMT scheme. Thereafter, on 26th August, 1993, the petitioner willfully left the employment, thus, he worked only for three months in the year 1993. Similarly, in the year 1995, he worked only for two months w.e.f. 16th February, 1995 to 16th April, 1995 for a fixed amount of Rs. 15,00/- per month. In the same year, again he worked for two months w.e.f. 21st July, 1995 to 20th August, 1995 and further from 25th August, 1995 to 24th September, 1995. Thus, the total period of work of the petitioner from 1993 to 1995 was about seven months only. Since, the appointment of the petitioner was not on a regular basis and he was kept on contract basis for a fixed remuneration of Rs. 15,00/- per month, he could not be appointed as Junior Engineer against the post, which was required to be filled up by the Commission. The non-petitioners have therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the non-petitioners and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 6. 15,00/- per month, he could not be appointed as Junior Engineer against the post, which was required to be filled up by the Commission. The non-petitioners have therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the non-petitioners and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 6. While reiterating all those grounds as enumerated in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on contract basis, hence, his services could not be terminated and he was entitled to be appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) with all consequential benefits. He has cited two cases Shamsher Singh & ors. v. State of Haryana & ors. reported in 2000(8) SLR 717 and Gorakh Nath Dwivedi v. State of West Bengal & ors., reported in 2000(1) SLR 645 , in support thereof. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has contended that when a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and his engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. He has cited the cases of D.Mohan v. P.O. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-L.C. Reported in 2007(1) LLN 314 and Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. v. Umadevi & ors. reported in 2006(3) Supreme Today 415 , in support thereof. 8. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the legal position, it is noticed that in the case of Gorakh Dwivedi (supra), the petitioner was a Teacher-in-Charge in a school who was directed to hand over the charge to another Teacher-in-Charge by the order of the Administrator dated 14th January, 1999. The normal rule of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an Ad hoc/temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, efforts should always be to replace such an Ad hoc/temporary employee by a regular selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. In such a situation, efforts should always be to replace such an Ad hoc/temporary employee by a regular selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. It has been held in this case that an Ad hoc/temporary employee should not be replaced by another Ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. It has been further held in this case that temporary employee had no right to the post. 9. Similarly, in the case of Shamsher Singh and others (supra), the issue was as to whether, after termination of the services of the petitioners, who were appointed on Ad hoc basis through re-employment on the same post on contractual basis at a consolidated salary was in accordance with the law? and; secondly, as to whether an appointment of persons regularly selected by Haryana Public Service Commission, termination of the services of the petitioners, who were appointed on Ad hoc/contractual basis could be termed as legal despite the availability of the vacant post carrying regular pay-scale in the respective discipline. It has been held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that when the nature of duties performed by the petitioners while appointed on contractual basis were same as were being performed by them when they were appointed on Ad hoc basis before their re-employment on contractual basis, there was no justification for the respondents to appoint Teachers on contract basis at a consolidated salary for a fixed term. 10. Both the judgments are not applicable in the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) for a fixed amount of Rs. 15,00/- per month on daily wages to work in IDSMT housing scheme. 11. Letter annexure-1 reveals that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages only for a period of one month by the then Collector, Dholpur. Similarly, vide letter dated 2nd September, 1995, the Executive Engineer, Municipal Council, Dholpur again engaged the petitioner on daily wages. There is no other document filed by the petitioner in support of his claim that he continuously worked for a period of more than one year during the year 1993 to September, 1995. Similarly, vide letter dated 2nd September, 1995, the Executive Engineer, Municipal Council, Dholpur again engaged the petitioner on daily wages. There is no other document filed by the petitioner in support of his claim that he continuously worked for a period of more than one year during the year 1993 to September, 1995. On the contrary, the non-petitioners have categorically disclosed the period during which the petitioner worked as a contract employee/daily wages employee for a fixed amount of Rs. 1500/- and his total period of work was seven months during the period effecting from June, 1993 to September, 1995. 12. In the case of D.Mohan v. P.O. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-L.C (supra) the High Court of Madras has held thus:- "The rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our constitution and if appointment is made flouting the rules, without proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. Assuming the appointment is contractual appointment or daily wage or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others) (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench) cited supra. In that decision, it was held that merely because a temporary employee or casual wage worker continued for a time beyond the terms of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in a regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such discontinuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. In that case, it was further held that it is not open to the Court to prevent the regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment do not acquire any right." (Empahsis supplied) 13. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. v. Umadevi & ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that- "Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves; they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. v. Umadevi & ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that- "Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves; they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equa1 work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service." (Empahsis supplied) 14. In view of above legal position, the petitioner does not have claim to be allowed to continue on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the service of Municipal Board, Dholpur. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner has no case and the writ petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be dismissed and stands dismissed accordingly.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******