JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels. 2. By the impugned order Annex.9 dated 26/5/2007, the services of the petitioner, who was appointed on contractual basis as Additional ANM by the respondent, Medical & Health Department, were terminated on the ground that a challan was filed in criminal case registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC on 13/4/200 and petitioner was arrested and produced before the trial court. On account of said allegations against the petitioner that mark sheet of Secondary School Examination was found to be forged and criminal case is pending against the petitioner, therefore, his service were terminated as per the terms of appointment order which stipulated that if any of the documents filed by the petitioner is found to be false or forged, the services of petitioner would be liable to be terminated on this ground. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Subhash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2005 WLC (Raj.) UC 708 submitted that departmental inquiry is to be held by the respondent department before passing such termination order even though criminal trial for the aforesaid offences is pending against the petitioner. 4. These submissions were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent Department. He submitted that the in view of pendency of criminal trial on the prima facie allegations against the petitioner, the respondent department is entitled to terminate the services of the petitioner in view of conditions stipulated in the appointment order itself and the petitioner being not a regular Government servant is not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, therefore, no departmental inquiry is required to be held in such matter. 5. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that the purpose of contractual appointment is to employ such person for a limited period subject to verification of documents produced by the candidate concerned and if the mark sheet of Secondary Examination, on which basis the petitioner got such contractual appointment was found to be forged, for which, of course, criminal trial is pending as on the date the impugned order was passed, the petitioner cannot insist for retaining the contractual appointment and this Court of the view that petitioner cannot claim continuity of his contract of service. 6. 6. Accordingly, this Court finds no force in the present writ petition and same, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******