JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution holding that admittedly the appellant was engaged as a Gram Rozgar Sewak under a contract of employment dated 8 January 2007 and that in the case of a contractual employment, if there is any breach, it is open to the aggrieved parties to seek recourse to the common law remedy. 2. A similar issue was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 11 December 2013 in (Harendra Kumar Rajak Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors.,) in Special Appeal Defective No.1257 of 2013. The Special Appeal was dismissed with the following observations: - "Admittedly, under the scheme which has been notified by the State Government, the services of a Gram Rojgar Sevak are contractual in nature for a period of one year extendable for a further period of two years. That period in the case of the appellant came to an end in 2009. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has no vested right to continue. Learned counsel submits that the appellant may be directed again to make a representation. We find that no useful purpose would be served in granting such an opportunity since the appellant has no vested right to continue. 3. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to differ with the earlier view of the Division Bench. There is no error in the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.