JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner - Keshav Chand Goyal, who was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer by order dated 4.4.1991 and worked as such with Municipal Board, Khairthal. The appointment of the petitioner was made in the Nehru Rojgar Yojna. The petitioner originally filed the writ petition before this Court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay to him salary of the post of Junior Engineer (degree holder) as per Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1989, but subsequently when his services were terminated by verbal order with effect from 1.10.1991, he prayed for and was allowed to amend the writ petition and this is how he challenged the verbal order of his termination dated 1.10.1991. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularise his services on the post of Junior Engineer. 2. This Court after hearing both the parties on the second stay petition filed by the petitioner by its order dated 9.12.1991 directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Junior Engineer provided post of Junior Engineer exists in Nehru Rojgar Yojna and budgetary provisions have been made. It appears that the petitioner has ever since continued to work with Municipal Board, Khairthal, albeit under the said direction of this Court. 3. I have heard Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Parinitoo Jain, Dy. Govt. Counsel for State and Shri Tarun Choudhary for respondent no. 3. 4. Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a degree holder Junior Engineer. His name was sponsored by Man Power Department of the Government of Rajasthan and he was appointed by Director, Local Bodies by order dated 15.2.1991. Initially, he was sent to Municipal Board, Rajgarh where he was not allowed joining due to non-availability of the post. He was then posted as Junior Engineer with Municipal Board, Khairthal pursuant to the order of Superintending Engineer, Local Bodies. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was continued in service except few days in the month of July, 1991 and October, 1991 but later his services were terminated by verbal order dated 1.10.1991. The petitioner has ever since continued in the services of the respondents as per interim order passed by this Court on 9.12.1991. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was continued in service except few days in the month of July, 1991 and October, 1991 but later his services were terminated by verbal order dated 1.10.1991. The petitioner has ever since continued in the services of the respondents as per interim order passed by this Court on 9.12.1991. The respondents directed the petitioner to discharge his duties under the Nehru Rojgar Yojna by order dated 30.11.1995. The petitioner accordingly joined at Tijara on 9.11.1995 and he was then transferred back to Municipal Board Khairthal vide order dated 15.1.1996. However, the petitioner joined at Khairthal on 23.1.1996. The Executive Officer refused to allow him to join and did not permit him to work. It was contended that there still exists a post of Junior Engineer in Nehru Rojgar Yojna and large number of works are pending in Municipal Board, Khairthal and there is also budgetary provision therefor. The respondents wanted to give undue advantage to one Junior Engineer Om Prakash Saini, who has been now posted with respondent no. 3. It was argued that one set of ad hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad hoc employees. The petitioner was being paid only at the rate of Rs. 55/- per day and yet required to discharge duties of Junior Engineer. The petitioner was entitled to regular salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Even though Nehru Rojgar Yojna continued till 1997, his services were abruptly terminated on 1.10.1991. Learned counsel argued that petitioner is entitled to regularisation. It was argued that payment of salary to the petitioner was abruptly stopped from the month of August, 1995. But, subsequently, he was paid a sum of Rs. 90/- per day in the month of January, 1996 and presently the decree holder respondent is getting Rs. 115/- per day. It was argued that the post of Junior Engineer was a transfer post and its controlling authority is Director, Local Bodies. It is also argued that the Junior Engineers working in Nehru Rojgar Yojana are still continuing in different municipalities. Petitioner has now become overage. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed in the terms prayed for. 5. It is also argued that the Junior Engineers working in Nehru Rojgar Yojana are still continuing in different municipalities. Petitioner has now become overage. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed in the terms prayed for. 5. Smt. Parinitoo Jain, learned Deputy Government Counsel and Shri Tarun Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that the appointment of the petitioner was made only on daily wages under Nehru Rojgar Yojna. In the order of appointment dated 4.1.1991, it was specifically stipulated that the appointment would be only till the construction work is over and when the construction work is over, the appointment would automatically come to an end. Nehru Rojgar Yojna is no more in existence since 1997 and petitioner cannot be granted any relief on that count. The appointment of the petitioner at the maximum could be taken as co-terminus with the continuation of the scheme. It was made known that the appointment would be continued till the availability of the work. The petitioner would not be, therefore, entitled to regular pay scale or at any rate, he cannot pray for regularisation in service. There is no provision for regularisation of Junior Engineer, appointed in Nehru Rojgar Yojna. Only one post of Junior Engineer was available in Municipal Board, Khairthal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that with the Scheme coming to an end in 1997, there is no scheme, nor any budget therefor and there can be no case for either continuation or regularisation of the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments aforesaid and perused the material available on record. 7. The facts aforenoted clearly show that there is no dispute between the parties that initial appointment of the petitioner was made on daily wage basis under he Nehru Rojgar Yojna. Subsequently, when his services were terminated, the order of termination was stayed by this Court by order dated 9.12.1991 but this Court merely directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Junior Engineer provided post of Junior Engineer exists in Nehru Rojgar Yojna and budgetary provision is made. It is thus clear that beyond the existence of Nehru Rojgar Yojna, the petitioner would not be entitled to continue. It is thus clear that beyond the existence of Nehru Rojgar Yojna, the petitioner would not be entitled to continue. The petitioner has in the additional affidavit stated that Nehru Rojgar Yojna, in which he was working was now converted into Swarn Jayanti Rojgar Yojna which is still in existence and a post of Junior Engineer exists in Swarn Jayanti Rojgar Yojna with the respondents no. 3. The affidavit was filed on 26.3.2002. The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition as late as on 9.9.2008. In the reply to the writ petition, the respondents have asserted that Nehru Rojgar Yojna has come to an end in the year 1997. Only one Junior Engineer was appointed on daily wages in this Yojna and since there was neither any post of Junior Engineer, nor any vacancy, the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit. The respondents have denied that Junior Engineers appointed in Nehru Rojgar Yojna are still continuing, their submission is that in whichever Municipality work is available, the Junior Engineers continued but after completion of the Yojna, none of them were continued. 8. In the face of these facts, therefore, it does appear that the scheme known as Nehru Rojgar Yojna came to an end in the year 1997 and thereafter another scheme by the name of Swarn Jayanti Rojgar Yojna was in existence. It appears that the petitioner has been continuing with the respondents ever since the interim order passed by this Court. But then, the question arises; can this Court by issue of mandamus require the respondents to pay to the petitioner salary in the regular pay scale as payable to regularly appointed Junior Engineers? Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by order dated 1.10.1991 was regular and valid? In the present case, the respondents have not given any valid justification as to why services of the petitioner were terminated when the scheme was still in existence and continued as such till August, 1997 and why were his services terminated? It is trite law that an ad hoc employee cannot be substituted by another ad hoc employee. It is not the case of the respondents that they have filled up the post held by the petitioner on regular basis. It is trite law that an ad hoc employee cannot be substituted by another ad hoc employee. It is not the case of the respondents that they have filled up the post held by the petitioner on regular basis. In fact their contention is that Nehru Rojgar Yojna is a scheme for appointment of rural people and the appointment of the Junior Engineer cannot be made on that basis. If that be so, the action of the respondents in terminating services of the respondent by order dated 1.10.1991 was arbitrary which is declared to be illegal and unconstitutional. 9. Consequent upon, the termination of the petitioner being declared illegal, the question arises can this Court further direct the respondents to keep the petitioner continued in their employment, even after closure of Nehru Rojgar Yojana or under any other Scheme, which may be available with them or otherwise, against any post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner has given a suggestion in his additional affidavit that subsequent to the closure of the Nehru Rojgar Yojna, the Scheme by the name of Swarn Jayanti Rojgar Yojna exist for the similar purpose. In fact, he contends that the nomenclature of Nehru Rojgar Yojna itself has been changed as such but the respondents contend that petitioner being appointed in Nehru Rojgar Yojna, could not be continued under any other scheme. Nevertheless, this Court finds that if the petitioner has been continued under any other scheme by the respondents themselves in spite of the fact that the interim order passed by this Court was only to the effect that the petitioner should be allowed to continue to work as Junior Engineer provided post of Junior Engineer exists in Nehru Rojgar Yojna and budgetary provisions therefor have been made, the action of the respondents to still continue the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer under Nehru Rojgar Yojna would be their own and need not be questioned. This leads this Court to accept the assertion made by the petitioner that he has been continued on daily wage basis ever since his initial appointment on 6.4.1991. This leads this Court to accept the assertion made by the petitioner that he has been continued on daily wage basis ever since his initial appointment on 6.4.1991. If the petitioner has in this manner continued in the service and if there still exists a post of Junior Engineer with respondents under Swarm Jayanti Rojgar Yojna or otherwise, the direction for regularisation of his services can still not be issued because the continuation of the petitioner was pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court upto August 1997 when Nehru Rojgar Yojna ended and beyond that period, by own action of the respondents which may have been owing to misinterpretation of the interim order passed by this Court. Even then however, the fact remains that the petitioner has continued in their service o but this Court still cannot on the mere strength of continuation of the petitioner, direct his regularisation in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . In fact, the Supreme Court in Rajendra and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 317 while dealing with termination of the services of the employees appointed under District Rural Development Agencies due to the abolition of the posts refused to interfere holding that when posts were temporarily created for a particular scheme and when the scheme came to an end, the employer cannot by way of writ of mandamus be directed to continue employing such employees because such a direction would tantamount to requiring creation of post though not required by the employer and funding of such posts to the employer who did not have funds available for that purpose. In spite of, therefore, holding termination of services of the petitioner made on 1.10.1991 to be illegal, no direction for regularisation of his services can be issued. 10. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner has continued for last 17 years with the respondents, it is considered appropriate to direct the respondents to continue to employ him against the vacant post of Junior Engineer, which may be available with them under Swarn Jayanti Rojgar Yojna or otherwise till such time the post is abolished due to closure of the scheme or till such post is otherwise filled by way of regular appointment thereto. Petitioner however would be at liberty to represent to the respondents for age relaxation if and when regular selection for appointment on such post is made.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed As Above. *******