JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. The appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal under the Clause 15 against the oral order dated 5.4.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.3287 of 2010 by which prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 26.8.2009 releasing the petitioner from the service by the respondent from the post of Assistant Manager - Central Stores, came to be rejected. 2. That brief facts of the case are as under : By way of public advertisement dated 17.8.2007 published in a vernacular newspaper "Divya Bhaskar", Rajkot edition, by the Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation, respondent herein, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Manager on fixed monthly salary of Rs.10,500/- and pursuant to that, the appellant/petitioner applied to the respondent for the post of Assistant Manager and as there is no dispute about the qualification and category to which the petitioner belongs, he came to be appointed by an order dated 25.2.2008 by the respondent. After appointment, the petitioner served with the respondent authority on various posts in different departments of Rajkot Municipal Corporation and he was also given additional charge for performing election duties etc. It is the case of the petitioner that without following any procedure, the service of the petitioner came to be terminated by an order dated 26.8.2009, which was impugned in the writ petition. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner as well the learned advocate for the respondent, by relying on paras 6 and 7 of affidavit, it was opined by the learned Single Judge that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Manager, was purely on contractual basis and as per the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment so accepted by the petitioner, the termination of service of the petitioner being prerogative of the management and accordingly, in absence of merit, the petition came to be rejected. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the above order, in this Letters Patent Appeal, learned advocate Mr. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the above order, in this Letters Patent Appeal, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the appellant would contend that for no reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing or even issuing notice to show cause as to why his service should not be terminated, the Authority has acted contrary to law and against the provisions of principle of Natural Justice, in unreasonable and arbitrary manner, violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, particularly, when the appointment of the appellant was by way of inviting application through public advertisement and that the appellant had undergone valid selection procedure and further one of the conditions of the appointment letter stipulated that on completion of period of three years of satisfactory service as an Assistant Manager in the fixed monthly salary of Rs.10,500/-, he was to be eligible for consideration of long term appointment in regular pay-scale of Rs.8000-13,500. Accordingly, non-consideration of the case of the petitioner and rejecting his prayer only on the basis of affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, injustice is done to him and order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. It is submitted that the action of the respondent is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory in view of the fact that after terminating the service of the appellant, another advertisement was issued for the very post of Assistant Manager in the same category to which the appellant belongs, of course, for monthly fixed salary of Rs.10,500/- which reveals that though work was available and service of the appellant was satisfactory and at no point of time, the appellant was either censured or warned or in any manner asked to improve his performance, the decision of the respondent to terminate his service abruptly before term of contract is ended, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. As against above, learned advocate for the respondent has supported the reasonings and decision of the learned Single Judge of non-accepting the prayer of the appellant since the appointment of the appellant at the threshold was purely on contractual basis for which terms and conditions were incorporated including that of terminating his service without any notice and such appointment would remain valid till pleasure of the employer. It is, therefore, submitted that the Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of merit and be rejected accordingly. 6. It is, therefore, submitted that the Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of merit and be rejected accordingly. 6. Upon perusal of the records of this Appeal and submissions made by learned advocates for the parties and careful reading of the order dated 5.4.2010 impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal, we find that the appellant did accept the terms and conditions incorporated in the appointment order dated 25.2.2008, which was only temporary and contractual and valid only for six months namely from the date of appointment 25.2.2008 to 31.8.2008 only. Therefore, when the service of the appellant came to be terminated on 26.8.2009, a representation was made by the appellant on 5.10.2009. It is stated by him that from time to time, contractual tenure of service of the appellant was extended finally upto 31.8.2009. When the nature of appointment and consequences thereof incorporated in the order of appointment itself was accepted by the appellant, to make a grievance later on that upon fulfilment of satisfactory performance on the post, at the end of three years service in fixed salary the appellant was eligible for regularisation with pay-scale prescribed for such post was against the terms of the contract and cannot be said to be illegal. That an employee appointed temporary on contractual terms, whose service is liable to be terminated upon an end of such contract or even prior to that in facts and circumstances of this case, when the appointing authority has found service of the appellant was no more required and acted in terms of letter of appointment, it can hardly be termed as arbitrary for unreasonable exercise of power and view taken by the learned Single Judge based on affirmed assertion of the appointing authority that the contractual term of appointment had come to an end and therefore, such appointment which confer no right including that of hearing or show cause upon an employee like the petitioner/appellant which could not have been enforced by undertaking writ proceedings. 7. In absence of merit, we find no force in the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant. We find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the petition. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.