JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner in first writ petition was appointed as Senior Demonstrator on urgent temporary basis by order dated 27.01.2010 for a period of six months. In a like manner, petitioners in second writ petition were appointed as Assistant Professors in Gynecology on urgent temporary basis by order dated 16.02.2010 for a period of six months. 2. Since both writ petitions involve identical question for adjudication, same were heard together and are being decided by this common order.Petitioners' services were terminated by respondents on expiry of period of six months, respectively on 21.07.2010 and 11.08.2010, but simultaneously a short-term advertisement was issued by them inviting fresh applications seeking to make appointments again on urgent temporary basis. This court was persuaded to pass interim order by which operation of fresh advertisement was stayed and respondents were directed to continue petitioners on posts so held by them till further orders. 3. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that one set of adhoc employees cannot be substituted by another set of adhoc employees. If this is allowed to be done, it would give rise to practice of pick and choose and cause hostile discrimination qua those who are already appointed and are replaced by fresh set of candidate s. There will be no stability in service provided by them and that so long as posts remain vacant whether under a scheme of otherwise, and petitioners are available for offering their services on strength of their appointments made after following similar process, respondents cannot be permitted to resort to same mechanism of inviting fresh applications and then make fresh appointments because law is settled that one set of adhoc employees cannot be substituted by another set of adhoc employees. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on judgment of this court in Mahendra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2010 (3) WLC (Raj.) 757 , wherein writ petitions involving identical question were allowed by a coordinate bench of this court at Jodhpur and in that light a similar judgment was passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 15341 of 2010, Gagan Kumar and Others v. State and Others, decided on 19.11.2010 . 5. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petition and argued that petitioners cannot challenge advertisement because advertisement has been issued for much more number of posts, therefore, coordinate bench of this court was persuaded to modify such order by allowing five petitioners in Writ Petition No. 12401 of 2010, Dr. Sunita Hemani and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another , for permitting the respondents to continue with process of selection in so far as other vacancies are concerned. It is contended that petitioners have no vested right to continue in service because their appointments were made on adhoc temporary basis for a period of six months and no more. Writ petitioners therefore be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record, I find that coordinate bench of this court in Mahendra Singh's case (supra) in similar circumstances has clearly directed respondents therein to continue petitioners' appointment as General Nurse Gr.II and Lab Technicians, who were appointed on adhoc temporary basis, with direction to respondents to continue them in their appointments till they are replaced by regularly selected candidate s. A liberty, however, was given to petitioners therein to also apply for regular selection process. So there is no reason why a similar approach is not taken in present matters because petitioners have already undergone process of selection and they were selected pursuant to advertisement issued by respondents earlier. It is not case of respondents that they are seeking to replace petitioners by substantive appointees. In fact again this time respondents are making appointments on same posts by means of a short-term advertisement on urgent temporary basis, which cannot be allowed because there is no justification for making fresh urgent temporary appointments when already the appointees in same status are available with them. This however does not mean that respondents cannot make appointments on urgent temporary basis on such pots which are additionally available with them other than posts on which petitioners are working. 7. In result, both writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to continue petitioners on urgent temporary basis, but they would, however, be at liberty to substitute them by regularly appointed candidate s. Petitioners would be at liberty to apply again and compete for such regular selections. Order dated 21.07.2010 (Annexure-3 in writ petition No.12490) and order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure-3 in writ petition No.11531/2010), are quashed and set aside. Order dated 21.07.2010 (Annexure-3 in writ petition No.12490) and order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure-3 in writ petition No.11531/2010), are quashed and set aside. 8. It goes without saying that petitioners shall be entitled for continuation in service on same terms and conditions including payment of salary as before.Writ petitions are accordingly allowed.Writ Petitions Allowed. *******