JUDGMENT 1. Though the matter has come up for orders, with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, the main matter is taken up for disposal. 2. Writ petitioner is a person who claims to be appointed on contract basis for the period of two years to work as 'computer operator' in the Karnataka Municipal Reforms Projects undertaken by the Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited in about thirty two towns having applied to the post in response to the Notification dated 18.04.2012 inviting application for the post of 'computer operator' and had been selected in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 2.5.2012 [copy at Annexure-B] on monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-and will be provided work for period of two years or till completion of the project whichever is earlier and subject to certain other conditions etc. 3. The present grievance of the petitioner is that his services has come to be terminated in a premature manner; that communication is now issued to the petitioner as per letter/order dated 19.10.2012 [copy at Annexure-E] quoting the decision of the Committee of the Corporation and having regard to the progress of the project, it has been decided to terminate the contract employment and as per the communication, so far as petitioner is concerned, his contract is terminated and as there is no further need for continuing the contract employment etc. 4. Petitioner has questioned this communication and submission of Sri. K Manjunatha Rao Bhonsle, learned counsel for petitioner is that the project is still in vogue, is continuing and communication of this nature putting contract employment to an end even during the subsistence of the project and before the expiry of two years is clearly violative of the term of the contract appointment. 5. Notice had been issued to the respondents. 6. Mr. Raghavendra G Gayatri, learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1, 2 & 4 and Sri. Reuben Jacob, learned counsel appears for respondents 3 & 5. 7. Submission of Sri. 5. Notice had been issued to the respondents. 6. Mr. Raghavendra G Gayatri, learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1, 2 & 4 and Sri. Reuben Jacob, learned counsel appears for respondents 3 & 5. 7. Submission of Sri. Reuben Jacob, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 & 5 is that petitioner's post is not a regular post, it is only contract employment; that the contract can be put to an end at any time and in the present case, as it was found that the kind of work for which the petitioner had been appointed had been completed and there was no work for the petitioner, it was decided to terminate the contract etc. 8. Sri. K Manjunatha Rao Bhonsle, learned counsel for petitioner, placing reliance on the single Bench order of this court rendered in writ petition Nos.44189-44191/2012 disposed of on 2.11.2012, submits that in similar situations, this court had directed the respondent - Corporation to consider the request of the petitioner to continue in the same employment if there was availability of work and petitioner will be content if the respondent is directed to consider the request for continuation of the petitioner, if there is work. 9. A contract employment is not a tenure service. It is the convenience and the requirement of the employer to continue or discontinue contract employment. Even it can be put to premature end also but subject to any notice period etc., if so contemplated. It is therefore that no direction can be issued to compel the respondents to continue the services of a contract employee either for two years or for entire duration of the project. 10. While direction cannot be issued to compel the respondents to act in a particular manner as observed by this court earlier, it is open to the petitioner to make a request and if the respondent finds it that the services of the petitioner can be availed of, it is up to them to continue the services of the petitioner. 11. It is also open to the petitioner if he is not satisfied to independently seek remedy if he complains that there is violation of the contract by suing the respondent for damages etc. Except for this observation, no other order can be passed in this writ petition. 12. Writ petition is dismissed.