JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.-Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was issued a call letter for the post of Clerk to be appointed out of the amalgamated fund on 1st August, 1985. The interview was fixed on 6th August, 1985. He was selected and was appointed on 7th August, 1985. The appointment of the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of letter dated 7th August, 1985, was purely on temporary basis and was liable to be terminated immediately after the joining of a regular hand or before the commencement of summer vacation. Petitioner was issued letter Annexure A-8, dated 29th April, 1998, whereby the decision was taken to terminate him w.e.f. 1st June, 1998 after the State Government has made arrangements for appointment of Clerk and other ministerial staff. 2. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the issuance of Annexure A-8, dated 29th April, 1998 is illegal, arbitrary and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that the services of petitioner were liable to be regularized since he has worked for more than ten years. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the issuance of Annexure A-8, dated 29th April, 1998. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was appointed out of the amalgamated fund by the Principal. The appointment was temporary in nature and the same was liable to be terminated after joining of a regular hand. A bare perusal of Annexure A-8, dated 29th April, 1998 reveals that the State Government has already made arrangements for appointment of Clerk and other ministerial staff. Once the appointments were made on regular basis, as is evident from Annexure A-8, the services of petitioner were liable to be terminated. There is neither any illegality nor arbitrariness in the issuance of Annexure A-8, dated 29th April, 1998. The case of the petitioner cannot be directed to be considered for regularization in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnatka versus Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.