ORDER Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence to cater for Medicare of all Ex-Serviceman in receipt of pension including disability pension and family pensioners, as also dependants to include wife/husband, sanctioned a health care scheme, viz., Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (hereafter referred as Scheme) vide circular No. 22 (1)/01/US(WE)/D (Res) dated 30.12.2002. 2. The Scheme being contributory provides that every service personnel will compulsorily become a member by contributing his/her share and is applicable for life time. To cater the need for Medicare to the Ex-servicemen the scheme provides for establishing new polyclinics and Augmented Armed Forces Clinics at 227 stations spread across the country. 3. To meet out the requirement of manpower to man these new polyclinics and Augmented Armed Forces Clinics, procedure for contractual employment of staffs was laid down vide Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 24 (6)/03/US(WE)/D(Res) dt. 22.9.2003, authorizing General Officer Commanding of an area or equivalent to grant sanction. The preference for contractual appointment, as per the scheme, is to be given to Ex-servicemen for all employment. In the case at hand since the appointment of Officer-in-Charge, Polyclinics is in question, the deliberation is confined to the same. The said post as per the procedure is cent percent reserved in favour of Ex-servicemen. 4. Petitioner, a retired ex-serviceman, having retired on attaining the age of Superannuation, w.e.f. 25.11.2003, was appointed as Officer-in-Charge ECHS Polyclinics, Jabalpur on contract basis on 15.4.2004 for a period of one year. The contractual appointment, as per the material on record, was extended for five times till 19.1.2010; thereafter, no extension was granted. And the Petitioner vide letter dated 13.1.2010 was informed that his services were no longer required after expiry of contractual agreement on 19.1.2010 as Officer-in-Charge ECHS Polyclinic, Jabalpur. That, by another letter dated 13.1.2010, the Respondent No. 5 who retired from service on 31.8.2009 was appointed as Officer Incharge for ECHS Polyclinic Jabalpur on contractual basis for twelve months. The appointment of Respondent No. 5, as apparent from the letter dated 13.1.2010, is on the basis of the Walk-in-Interview held on 29.4.2009. 5. That, by another letter dated 13.1.2010, the Respondent No. 5 who retired from service on 31.8.2009 was appointed as Officer Incharge for ECHS Polyclinic Jabalpur on contractual basis for twelve months. The appointment of Respondent No. 5, as apparent from the letter dated 13.1.2010, is on the basis of the Walk-in-Interview held on 29.4.2009. 5. The Petitioner who is aggrieved of his non-continuation as the Officer-in-Charge, ECHS Polyclinic and the appointment of Respondent No. 5 as such, has preferred this petition seeking quashment of appointment of Respondent No. 5 and the directions to Respondents to allow the Petitioner to work as OIC ECHS, Polyclinic, Jabalpur with all consequential benefits. 6. Contentions put-forth by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondents have arbitrarily discarded the Petitioner for appointment as OIC undermining his past performance of five terms. It is also contended that, the Respondent No. 5 has been favoured by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Petitioner further contends that the Respondent No. 5 when he was interviewed on 29.4.2009 was not eligible for appointment as he was in service and not an ex-serviceman. It is urged that, the Respondent No. 5, though ineligible was favoured for appointment. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner to bring home his submission referred to various provisions as contained in the scheme as also the term of contract. 7. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on their turn counter the allegation and assertion that ineligible person has been favoured with the appointment. It is contended that, Petitioner's extension of contractual appointment vide agreement dated 20.1.2009 was for a period of one year which expired on 19.1.2010 and since no extension was granted, no right accrues in favour of the Petitioner for continuation or renewal of appointment. 8. In respect of the appointment of Respondent No. 5, it is contended that, Army Circular AO 61/84 empowers the Regular Officers of the army, if they so wish, apply for Civil appointments within one year of the date of their compulsory retirement. It is urged that the Respondent No. 5 retired from service on 31.8.2009 and, therefore, it was within his right to seek appointment as officer-in-charge, ECHS, Polyclinic, Jabalpur on 29.4.2009. It is contended that, no illegality has been committed in appointing Respondent No. 5 as OIC, ECHS, Polyclinic, Jabalpur. 9. It is urged that the Respondent No. 5 retired from service on 31.8.2009 and, therefore, it was within his right to seek appointment as officer-in-charge, ECHS, Polyclinic, Jabalpur on 29.4.2009. It is contended that, no illegality has been committed in appointing Respondent No. 5 as OIC, ECHS, Polyclinic, Jabalpur. 9. The Respondents No. 1 to 4 in their reply though have also pleaded that, there has been complaint against Petitioner's working as OIC; however, since except the complaints no other materials are brought on record as to how the authorities have adjudged the complaint and there is no premature termination of the contractual appointment which in fact has came to an end after its expiry on 19.1.2010, and the letter dated 13.1.2010 also does not reflect that non-extension of the contract appointment is because of the complaints, no credence is given to the stand taken by the Respondents regarding complaint against the Petitioner. However, the non-consideration of the complaints, in other words ignoring the complaints ipso facto will not crystallize the right to reappointment as OIC ECHS Polyclinic in favour of the Petitioner. And though the scheme stipulates that, the "Contractual employment at ECHS Polyclinic will be for a period up to superannuation (age of superannuation as stipulated in the circular B/49760/AG/ECHS(R) dt. 7.3.2006 Annexure P-3 is 65 years) on renewal after every eleven months based on the review of conduct of performance of contractual employee. Therefore, when an individual's performance is satisfactory and he has adequate residual age for the specific post he is holding; no wasteful expenditure will be incurred in advertising fresh selection nor effort put in by convening a selection board." 10. However, the Petitioner who categorically agreed vide agreement dated 20.1.2009 that "the Engaged Person declares any (sic and) acknowledge that, this agreement does not amount to employment with ECHS or the Army, Navy, Air Force or Govt. of India nor confer any right on the Engaged person nor any representation or obligation on ECHS or the Army, Navy, Air Force or Govt. of India as to possibility or performance in employment or any further employment in ECHS or elsewhere at any time in future" (clause 14), cannot as a matter of right seek direction to Respondent to allow the Petitioner to work as OIC ECHS Polyclinic, Jabalpur. 11. of India as to possibility or performance in employment or any further employment in ECHS or elsewhere at any time in future" (clause 14), cannot as a matter of right seek direction to Respondent to allow the Petitioner to work as OIC ECHS Polyclinic, Jabalpur. 11. The issue regarding appointment of Respondent No. 5, who admittedly, retired from service on 31.8.2009 and applied as per AO 61/84 (Annexure R/14) which gave right to Regular Officer to apply for civil appointments within one year of the date of their compulsory retirement was within his right to have applied for appointment as OIC ECHS Polyclinic, Jabalpur. And since Respondent No. 5 was appointed on 13.1.2010, i.e., after his retirement, the appointment of Respondent No. 5 cannot be faulted with. 12. In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs.