JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has taken exception to the advertisement notice dated 23rd May, 2013, essentially on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Steno Typist pursuant to advertisement dated 10th August, 2011 and if the Authorities wanted to avail of the services of Clerk-cum-Steno Typist, ought to have continued him instead of re-advertising that post. To buttress this argument, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others1 and another decision in the . case of Sat Pal Chopra vs. The Director-cum-Joint Secretary and another2. The challenge of the petitioner is completely misplaced. The petitioner was, no doubt, appointed on stop gap arrangement of pursuant to advertisement dated 10th August, 2011, but his appointment letter clearly mentioned that it was a tenure appointment of only one year on payment of fixed honorarium. The petitioner has completed that term. Having accepted the said term of appointment and worked on the post on clear understanding that the tenure was only one year, it is not open to the petitioner to claim any right in respect of the said post, which appointment was only a stop gap arrangement. 3. THE decisions pressed into service have been rightly distinguished by the counsel for the respondents that in the present case the appointment was not against the regular post, on ad hoc or temporary basis, as was the case in Piara Singh and others (supra). As regards the second decision relied upon by the petitioner that has no application to the principle pursued by the petitioner before this Court. In that case, the claim of the petitioners was one for regularization. 4. THE fact remains that the term of appointment of the petitioner has already expired. Moreover, what is significant to notice is that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to advertisement dated 10th August, 2011, which did not require the . qualifying skill in typing and shorthand, as is prescribed in the impugned advertisement dated 23rd May, 2013. The bench mark provided in the impugned advertisement is much higher and of specific. Moreover, what is significant to notice is that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to advertisement dated 10th August, 2011, which did not require the . qualifying skill in typing and shorthand, as is prescribed in the impugned advertisement dated 23rd May, 2013. The bench mark provided in the impugned advertisement is much higher and of specific. Even for this reason, the petitioner cannot insist that he should be continued on the same post even after the expiry of one year's tenure. The petitioner was free to participate pursuant to the impugned advertisement and subject to fulfilling qualification, could have been considered. However, the petitioner has not chosen to apply pursuant to the impugned advertisement. No relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, dismissed so also the pending applications, if any.