JUDGMENT Per Magrey, J. 1. The instant appeal challenges the legality of order dated 13th October, 2015, passed in a writ petition being SWP No. 1295/2015, for short 'impugned order', dismissing the writ petition of appellants/petitioners. 2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge to the impugned order, it is thought proper to refer to the dispute, in brief, in the first instance. 3. Appellants/petitioners are stated to have been engaged as Assistant Managers in the Respondent Corporation for a period of six months. 4. Pursuant to the orders of engagement, appellants/ petitioners joined and discharged their duties for the term specified. Thereafter, Respondent Corporation issued an Order No. PS/26/15-981, dated 18th March, 2015, ceasing various orders issued from time to time including the one that engaged appellants/petitioners as Assistant Managers. 5. The appellants/petitioners challenged the said order dated 18th March, 2015, by filing a writ petition, SWP No. 1295/2015, which upon consideration by the Writ Court has been dismissed vide order dated October 13, 2015. Appellants/ petitioners feeling aggrieved have filed the instant appeal seeking reversal of Writ Court order. 6. Precisely the ground taken for challenging the impugned Judgment is that the Writ Court did not appreciate the manner in which the order dated 18th March, 2015, was issued. 7. The Writ Court, in terms of impugned judgment, has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that order impugned in the writ petition has been issued on well founded reasons and the appellants/petitioners have discharged their duty for the term they were appointed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and considered the matter. 9. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the order of engagement of appellants carries a promise for regularization on satisfactory performance of duties which has not been given any regard while issuing the order of disengagement. Therefore, it is contended that the Writ Court has not made any mention of this aspect, which renders the impugned judgment unsustainable under law. He prays that impugned judgment be set aside and writ petition of the petitioners be allowed. 10. Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawja, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the impugned judgment and the Writ Court has appreciated the controversy in its true perspective, therefore, same needs to be left uninterfered. He prays that impugned judgment be set aside and writ petition of the petitioners be allowed. 10. Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawja, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the impugned judgment and the Writ Court has appreciated the controversy in its true perspective, therefore, same needs to be left uninterfered. He submits that the contention of having extended a promise of regularization to appellants/ petitioners in their engagement order does not create any right, muchless an enforceable right in favour of appellants/petitioners to insist upon their continuance. 11. Considered the submissions made and went through the entire material made available. 12. We do not see any ground having been made out to convince the court to interfere with the impugned Judgment. The instant LPA does not in any way carve out a case that may lend support to the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant. In fact, we see the LPA as nothing but an attempt to prolong the unnecessary litigation. The impugned judgment, in the circumstances, is upheld However, respondents are directed to fill up the posts in accordance with the Rules. The LPA is dismissed as being meritless. However, there shall, however, be no order as to costs. LPA dismissed