JUDGMENT : 1. All petitions involve similar facts and the issues, hence are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners, in the present petitions, have challenged the orders dated 4/10/2013, whereby the contract of the petitioners as Computer Operators with Machines have been terminated, and they sought further direction to keep the contractual services of the petitioners continued under the direct contract set up of the respondent Board and to regularize their services on the post of Computer Operators. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of the Court that identical petitions have been dismissed by this Court vide the order dated 3/2/2015 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11726/2014, Deepak Kumar vs. Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan & Anr. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Damodar Prasad Meena & 73 Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2014(4) WLC (Raj.) 495 at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur has disposed of the petitions by directing the respondents to take policy decision with regard to the appointment of Computer Operators with Machines and allow to continue the petitioners of the said petitions on contractual basis till such decision is taken by the State Government. 4. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed as Computer Operator with machines on contractual basis and the said period of contract has already come to an end, and therefore the respondents vide order dated 4/10/2013 have put to an end to the services of the petitioners on the expiry of contract period with effect from 30/9/2013. However, it appears that the petitioners having filed the petitions thereafter, the Court had passed the interim order on 30/5/2014, directing the respondents not to replace the petitioners by other contractual employees. The said order is continued till this date. Be that as it may, as per the settled legal position laid down in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the services of the contractual employees would come to an end with the expiry of the contract. The relevant paragraphs read as under :- “.......43. Be that as it may, as per the settled legal position laid down in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the services of the contractual employees would come to an end with the expiry of the contract. The relevant paragraphs read as under :- “.......43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment' in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 5. In view of the said settled legal position, the prayers prayed for in the present petition cannot be granted. The petitions therefore deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. By this order, stay applications and other pending applications, if any also stand dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in each connected petitions.