JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, in the instant writ application, have prayed for a limited relief to the effect that they be not replaced by another set of contractual employees as Pharmacists-Helpers in the Drug Distribution Centres. 2. However, the petitioners do not dispute the fact that they will have to make way for the regularly selected candidates as and when are made available. 3. Learned counsel has also relied upon the directions issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications, lead case, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12577/2012 (Deepak Jain and others v. State of Rajasthan and others), decided on 24th September, 2012 . 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8849/2011, decided on 21st September, 2011, observed that after regular selection is made the petitioners cannot have any claim, to continue on contractual basis. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the materials available on record as well as keeping in view, the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, there cannot a dispute or debate on the point that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees. 6. Further, it needs no observation that in the event of regular selection made in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules, the contractual employees will have to make way for the regularly selected candidates. 7. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Jain and others (supra), disposed off the writ application with the directions, which reads thus: "1. The petitioners have been appointed on contract basis under a particular scheme, thus cannot claim continuance indefinitely more so if regularly selected candidates are available. The petitioner can be replaced by regularly selected candidates. 2. If petitioners are not replaced by regularly selected candidates rather respondents intend to engage fresh hands on contract basis for the post of Pharmacist, then their action would be illegal to discontinue petitioners. 3. It is settled law that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees. 2. If petitioners are not replaced by regularly selected candidates rather respondents intend to engage fresh hands on contract basis for the post of Pharmacist, then their action would be illegal to discontinue petitioners. 3. It is settled law that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees. Accordingly, if respondents are in need of additional hands on contract basis for the post of Pharmacist, then petitioners would be given continuity and preference. In case of discontinuity for want of requirement, it would be by applying the principle of 'last come first go' at the district level. 4. The respondents are directed to allow work of drug distribution only through those having required qualification. The drugs distribution should not be in the hands of those who are not in possession of the required qualification. Accordingly, if drugs distribution is given in the hands of the unqualified persons, necessary corrective action may be taken so as to depute the Pharmacist for drugs distribution. 5. If continuance to the petitioners is given as per direction Nos.2 & 3, then it would be till the existence of the Scheme and not beyond that. Petitioners would not be entitled for regularisation as they have been engaged only under the Scheme and not in regular establishment. 7. If the petitioners have been discontinued and new hands have been engaged, then respondents are directed to continue the petitioners in preference to new and fresh hands. It is, however, made clear that continuance on the post of Pharmacist would be only to those who are in possession of the required qualification. If any of the petitioner is lacking in qualification, then he would not be entitled for the post aforesaid. 9. It is also made clear that replacement of the petitioners should not be even through a persons taken on contract through the replacement agency. This disposes of stay applications also." 8. If any of the petitioner is lacking in qualification, then he would not be entitled for the post aforesaid. 9. It is also made clear that replacement of the petitioners should not be even through a persons taken on contract through the replacement agency. This disposes of stay applications also." 8. The State-respondents themselves, have placed reliance, in the counter affidavit, on the opinion in the case of Ashok Godara v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8849/2011, decided on 21st September, 2011 , wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, at Jodhpur, observed thus: "(3) the respondents are further restrained to avail services of the Pharmacist through placement agencies/NGOs, if such Pharmacists are not being engaged by such placement agencies/NGOs without conducting fair process of selection to examine their merit. For conducting such process of selection the placement agency/NGO is required to invite applications from eligible candidates from the open market and to examine their merit by a proper process." 9. This Court does not see any reason why the State-respondents would not act in compliance of the directions, as extracted here in above, which have been referred to and relied upon in their counter affidavit itself. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant writ application stands disposed off in terms of directions in the case of Deepak Jain and others (supra).Writ Petition Disposed of As Above. *******