JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Chaudhari holding brief of Shri Yashwant Verma learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was engaged on contract basis and he continued for two years. The engagement on the post of physical Training Instructor was in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. The petitioner has now been relieved under the office memorandum dated 30.03.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is entitled for being considered to be confirmed in the service in view of the office order dated 30.3.2009, a copy whereof has been filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit today. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in similar circumstances one Shri Kamlesh Thapliyal has been extended the benefit of confirmation. 4. Shri Rahul Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the engagement of the petitioner was totally on a contractual basis, which has already come to an end and mere over stay beyond the period of engagement does not give any right to the petitioner to claim further benefits. He further submits that even continuing for a very long period on contract does not confer any statutory right to claim confirmation, inasmuch as, the office order dated 30.3.2009 is in relation to the recruitment of non-teaching staff whereas the petitioner is a physical Training Instructor. He further submits that the case of Shri Kamlesh Thapliyal will not apply to the case of the petitioner as he was a technician and not a member of the teaching staff. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of disengagement has been passed without notice or opportunity. 6. In my opinion, no notice is required in the matter of contractual appointment where the date of termination of the contract is well known in advance at the time of engagement of the employee itself. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it is evident that the engagement was on contractual basis. Mere continuance on contractual basis for long does not give any right of confirmation or regularization. This issue has now been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . 8. Mere continuance on contractual basis for long does not give any right of confirmation or regularization. This issue has now been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . 8. So far as, the claim of parity with Shri Kamlesh Thapliyal is concerned, it is evident that the petitioner is a physical Training Instructor, who does not fall within the definition of non-teaching staff as contemplated under the office memorandum dated 30.3.2010. Shri Kamlesh Thapliyal was a junior technician, therefore, he was extended the said benefit. 9. In view of this, no breach has been committed by the respondents so as to invoke the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. 11. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by any breach of the terms of the contract, it is open to him to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of his claims. ————