ORDER : Nirmaljit Kaur, J.: Both these writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the notice dated 12.12.2014 vide which the services of the petitioners have been terminated; with a further prayer to allow the petitioners to continue in service. The petitioner in CWP No.323/2015 was appointed on 6.4.2012 on contract basis in the respondent department on the post of Nursing Staff (Male) on a fixed salary of Rs.10,000/-per month which was increased to Rs.12,000/-per month. The term of appointment was extended further vide order dated 1.4.2013 upto 30.6.2014 and thereafter vide order dated 15.4.2014 upto 30.6.2015. The petitioner in CWP No.324/2015 was appointed on 1.1.2011 on contract basis in the respondent department on the post of Nursing Staff (Male)/Student's Welfare Supervisor on a fixed salary of Rs.16,500/-per month. However, vide order dated 12.12.2014, the services of the petitioners were terminated with effect from 11.1.2015 after giving one month's notice. While praying for setting aside the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the services of the petitioners were satisfactory. There was no complaint and in spite of the same, the services have been terminated without granting any opportunity of hearing and giving any show cause notice. It was further contended that the respondent department is in need of the services of the employees like the petitioners and that persons junior to the petitioners have been retained in the services by the respondent department. Reply has been filed. As per the reply, there were complaints against the staff of the Health Centre in general and the complaint of the students was forwarded to the University Doctor who after examining the entire record submitted his report,- “1. Mr. R.D. Goyal is not qualified personnel to be continued on the contractual post of Male Nurse, as, he is a Pharmacist; 2. Ms. Joey Felicia is a qualified A.N.M. and not a Nurse; and 3. Mr. Jitendra Singh Shekhawat is not holding the requisite nursing certificate.” The report of the doctor was placed before the Vice Chancellor who approved the proposal to terminate the services of the staff who are not qualified. Ms. Joey Felicia is a qualified A.N.M. and not a Nurse; and 3. Mr. Jitendra Singh Shekhawat is not holding the requisite nursing certificate.” The report of the doctor was placed before the Vice Chancellor who approved the proposal to terminate the services of the staff who are not qualified. The Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 27.1.2015 directed the Registrar of the University to send a communication to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur to take the test of the petitioner Jitendra Singh Shekhawat to ascertain his performance as nurse. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, the respondent University filed additional affidavit. As per the additional affidavit, the Superintendent, M.G.H. Jodhpur constituted a Committee. The Committee examined the petitioner Jitendra Singh Shekhawat and submitted its report dated 7.2.2015. As per the said report, the petitioner possesses the qualification for the post of 'General Nursing Assistant' only. He has not done the 3 ½ nursing course under the Rajasthan Nursing Council required for pursuing the profession of 'Nurse'. It was further submitted that the petitioner is not registered with the Nursing Council. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. It is evident from the facts narrated above that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis and on fixed salary. Their services were terminated after giving one month's notice. The termination is not stigmatic in any manner. As per the report of the Committee constituted in pursuance to the direction of this Court, Jitendra Singh Shekhawat is only qualified to be appointed as 'General Nursing Assistant' and not 'Nurse' whereas as per the affidavit, the University does not require any 'Nursing Assistant'/Pharmacist. The University intends to upgrade its medical services at University Health Centre and has proposed to recruit candidates holding the qualification for the post of Nurse and a notification to the said effect has also been issued. Thus, the petitioner Jitendra Singh Shekhawat is not qualified to be appointed as Nurse and the petitioner Ridmal Singh Goyal is only a Pharmacist. Neither the post of Nursing Assistant nor the Pharmacist is required in the University Health Centre. This Court in the case of Ashok Godara Vs. State & Ors. Thus, the petitioner Jitendra Singh Shekhawat is not qualified to be appointed as Nurse and the petitioner Ridmal Singh Goyal is only a Pharmacist. Neither the post of Nursing Assistant nor the Pharmacist is required in the University Health Centre. This Court in the case of Ashok Godara Vs. State & Ors. (SBCWP No.3503/2014) decided on 22.5.2014 while dealing with the status of a contractual employee held in para 11 as under:- “As far as the question of giving mandamus direction to the State to continue the petitioners in contractual employment beyond 30/4/2014 is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that such a mandamus direction cannot be given. It is within the domain and discretion of the State Government to extend the contractual term upto the period, which they think proper looking to their requirements, availability of posts, availability of financial sanction & approval from the State Govt. under Free Medical Aid Scheme by the Central Government for NRHM under which the said projects are continuing. There is no material placed on record by the petitioners that without the employment of petitioner on contractual basis, the State Government would not be able to run these DDCs under the Chief Minister's Free Medical Aid Scheme, which undoubtedly is continuing even after the change of Government after Legislative Assembly Elections in 2013. The administrative structure required for manning such DDCs is within the control of the State & the State has already held regular selection process for Pharmacists & the Information Assistants in recent past. It may do so even now for remaining posts as sanctioned by the State.” Coming back to the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioners were appointed purely on contractual basis. Thus, there is no legal foundation and basis for directing the University to continue the petitioners on contractual appointment especially when the University has decided not to appoint any Nursing Assistant or Pharmacist nor any such sanctioned post exists in the University Health Centre. Moreover, the Court cannot direct the State or other statutory bodies to create a post. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.