Judgment :- 1. Petitioner belongs to backward class and has qualification of Higher secondary. She also passed typewriting English and Tamil of senior grade. The petitioner was registered with Employment Exchange, Chennai on 29.08.1984 which was renewed periodically. She was interviewed on 18.09.1997 by the respondent along with other eligible persons, and appointed temporarily as typist with effect from 26.09.1997. The appointment letter issued to the petitioner reads as under: "ORDER Tmt. K.Senthamil Selvi, W/o Thiru D. Rajakkili is appointed as Typist with effect from 26.09.1997 Forenoon in the scale of pay of Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660 plus allowance as admissible in the post sanctioned in the G.O first cited and continued in the G.O. third cited. 2) Her appointment in the State Law Commission is purely temporary and her services may be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons therefore. She is also not entitled to claim any right for any employment to any service in the State Service by virtue of this employment. " When the petitioner completed 4 years ands 5 months of service, her service was ordered to be terminated, in terms of her letter of appointment. The order of termination reads as under: "The temporary services of Tmt. K. Senthamil Selvi, Typist, State Law Commission are terminated with effect from 28.02.2002 A.N.," 2. The impugned order, has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that on completion of 4 years and 5 months of service, the petitioner was entitled to be regularised from the date of her initial appointment with all consequential benefits. This contention is totally misconceived as in absence of any rule/regulation or legal and enforceable instructions, an employee cannot claim regularisation. 3. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground, of it being in violation of principle of natural justice, as no notice was issued to the petitioner before terminating her from service. 4. The termination is further challenged on the ground that the order of termination is totally non speaking order therefore not justified in law. 5. On consideration I find no force in this writ petition. The order of termination has been passed in terms of letter of appointment which does not cast any stigma. 4. The termination is further challenged on the ground that the order of termination is totally non speaking order therefore not justified in law. 5. On consideration I find no force in this writ petition. The order of termination has been passed in terms of letter of appointment which does not cast any stigma. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that principle of natural justice was to be followed before termination cannot be sustained, as the order was not by way of punishment, but in terms of the letter of appointment, nor the contention of the petitioner can be accepted that the impugned order is non speaking order as the order is not punitive or stagmatic in nature for which a speaking order, was required to be passed. Therefore, no ground for interference by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out . No merits. Dismissed.