JUDGMENT 1. - The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of connected appeal being S.A.W.No.631/2010 because both these appeals arise out of common impugned order passed by the single judge. 2. This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 7156 of 2010 under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High court Rules read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India against an order dated 30.8.2010 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and in consequence upheld his removal. 4. So the question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition of appellant and in consequence justified in upholding his removal? 5. This is what the learned single judge held while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant:- "10. The contract of service of the present petitioners was neither stipulated nor intended to be co-terminus with the BPL MM JRL Scheme itself. Therefore, even though the Scheme continues, if the number of posts have been abolished and the same have been curtailed to 886 as per the Table given above, no exception to the same can be taken, particularly, in view of the fact that no such material has been produced by the petitioners or from any other documents on record that any of the Primary Health Centres or Satelite Hospitals have been closed down on account of non-extension of contract of service of the present petitioners. If the State can manage to run these services with the help of existing staff or the persons appointed even on contract basis prior in point of time than the present petitioners, the present petitioners have o valid ground to assail the same. 11. In view of above, this Court finds not force in these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs." 6. Facts of the case are simple. They are mentioned infra. 7. The appellant was appointed on contract basis by the State. The contract was for a particular duration. The State cancelled the contract which otherwise came to an end and in consequence, terminated his service. No order as to costs." 6. Facts of the case are simple. They are mentioned infra. 7. The appellant was appointed on contract basis by the State. The contract was for a particular duration. The State cancelled the contract which otherwise came to an end and in consequence, terminated his service. It is against this termination, the appellant felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition out of which this intra court appeal arise claiming relief of reinstatement and setting aside of his termination. As observed supra, the writ court dismissed the writ petition by impugned order quoted supra, giving rise to filing this intra court appeal by the writ petitioner. 8. In our opinion, no fault can be noticed in the impugned order for more than one reason. In the first place, the time period fixed in the contract has come to an end by efflux of time and hence there arise no case for enforcement of such contract for claiming reinstatement. Secondly, the appointment of appellant was not made against any substantive post pursuant to any rules as such so as to enable him to take the shelter of Article 311 of the Constitution for challenging his termination. Thirdly, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi, every appointment of a person by the State in their service does not attract the rigor of Article 311 ibid and hence umbrella of Article 311 ibid was not available to the appellant and fourthly, in cases, where the appointment is purely a contractual one, there arise no case of reinstatement in service regardless of time period fixed in the contract and in such cases, the remedy of the parties lie in taking recourse to remedies available for claiming damages by filing claim before the competent Court keeping in view the terms of contract and proving the breach and lastly, when the posts have been abolished by the State then there arise no{ 4 } case to provide any room for such contractual appointee as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. 9. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error while dismissing the writ petition in limine. We thus concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the intra court appeal in limine.Appeal Dismissed. *******