JUDGMENT 1. We have learned counsel for appellants. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.9.2014 by which the writ petition filed by the appellants to allow to continue them on the post of Computer Operator with Machine, was dismissed on the ground that all the appellants were appointed as Computer Operator with Machine under the National Rural Health Mission on contract. The term of their contract has expired and in the meantime, the State Government has appointed the Computer Operators with designation as `Information Assistant' through regular selection process in the year 2013 for the work performed by the petitioners. 2. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition following the judgment in the case of Ashok Godara v. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.3503/2014 decided on 22.5.2014) in which following observations were made in para 14 and 15 of the judgment: "14. As far as the Computer Operators are concerned, there is no dispute that with a different name and designation known as "Information Assistants" the regular selection process has already been held by the State Government in the year 2013 and since the regularly selected persons or Information Assistants became available for the post of Computer Operators, some of the present petitioners, who are Computer Operators, cannot claim any preferential right over the regularly selected and appointed Computer Operators/Information Assistants. 15. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that present set of writ petitions do not have any merit & deserve to be dismissed and no mandamus direction can be given to the respondent State to extend the term of contractual employment of the Pharmacists employed through agencies other than RMRS Computer Operators and Helpers working in the various DDCs, run and operated by the State Government under the Chief Minister's Free Medical Aid Scheme." 3. All the appellants were appointed under a Scheme for providing services for computing in National Rural Health Mission, a project undertaken by the State Government from the funds received from the Central Government. The appointments were made through placement Agency on contractual basis initially for a period of one year. 4. It is admitted that the term of the appellants' contract has expired in the year 2013 and since thereafter, the petitioners have been allowed to continue. The appointments were made through placement Agency on contractual basis initially for a period of one year. 4. It is admitted that the term of the appellants' contract has expired in the year 2013 and since thereafter, the petitioners have been allowed to continue. All the appellants made representation to the State Government including the Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan to allow them to continue, as they were appointed with an assurance that their services will not be replaced by regular appointees and that they will be adjusted/regularised on the regular posts. 5. All the appellants were employed on contract on a consolidated salary of Rs. 6500/- per month for a period of one year. It is admitted that the term of contract has since expired and that in the meantime, the State Government has carried out the exercise of appointment of Information Assistants to replace all those persons, who were working on contract under the Scheme. 6. In the circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere, especially when the regular appointments have been made on these posts. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 in support of his submissions that services of contractual employees could not be dispensed with arbitrarily to be replaced by another set of contractual appointments. 8. The case of Piara Singh (supra) was considered by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC p.1 , in which after considering all the judgments on the question of absorption and regularisation, it was held that the employees, who have been appointed irregularly dehors the statutory rules of appointment, do not have a right to continue and that regularisation of employees, working as daily wagers or on adhoc basis appointed irregularly, can be made only under the statutory rules. 9. In the present case, the appellants were appointed on contract. They did not have any right to continue beyond the term fixed in the contract, especially after the regular recruitments for the job has been made. 10. The Special Appeal is dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed. 11. 9. In the present case, the appellants were appointed on contract. They did not have any right to continue beyond the term fixed in the contract, especially after the regular recruitments for the job has been made. 10. The Special Appeal is dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed. 11. In the end, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in respect of some of the appellants, arrears of the wages of their contractual appointment have not been paid. We need not issue any directions in this regard. The State Government is bound to pay their fixed wages on which the appellants were appointed under contract, provided the petitioners claiming such arrears of contractual wages have worked for the period under the orders passed by the competent authority. In case, any arrears are due to anyone, the same shall be released as expeditiously as possible.Special appeal dismissed. *******