JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The petitioner was engaged as Computer Operator with Machines in the Scheme, which is still continuing. His services were dispensed with on completion of the term of contract, on which they filed a writ petition with the prayers that the order dated 04.10.2013 may be quashed and set aside, and the respondents may be directed to keep the contractual services of the petitioner continued under the direct contract, till regularly selected candidates joins duties. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Computer Operator, and further the respondents may be directed to commence the recruitment process for regular selection on the post of Computer Operator, and give the benefit of experience to the petitioner, and give regular appointment to the petitioner. 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the coordinate Bench of this Court, in Damodar Prasad Meena & 73 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2014(4) WLC (Raj.) 495] at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur has disposed of the writ petitions by directing the respondents to take a 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. Learned Single Judge thereafter found that it was 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 04.10.2013, have put to an end the services of the petitioners on the expiry of the contract period. Learned Single Judge thereafter relied on para 43 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. [ 2006(4) SCC 1 ] , in which the Supreme Court held that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after the proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. [ 2006(4) SCC 1 ] , in which the Supreme Court held that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after the 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. The Supreme Court thereafter observed that the High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this Court had repeatedly held that one set of contractual employees should not be replaced by another set of contractual employees, so long the Scheme, in which they have been appointed, continues. In the present case, he submits that the appellant was said to be replaced by another contractual employee. 6. We do not find that this plea was taken in the pleadings, or any prayer was made claiming that the petitioners are going to be placed by another set of contractual employees. We also do not find that this argument was raised and pressed before learned Single Judge, who has decided the writ petition on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 7. It is submitted that the interim order was passed, directing the respondents not to replace the petitioners with another set of contractual employees. The point, however, was not taken, argued, or pressed at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. 8. We do not find any fault or legal error in the judgment of learned Single Judge, who has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (supra) in dismissing the writ petition. 9. 8. We do not find any fault or legal error in the judgment of learned Single Judge, who has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (supra) in dismissing the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant may be given liberty to file a review petition before learned Single Judge, seeking the ground that one set of contractual employees may not be replaced by another set of contractual employees. 10. The Special Appeal is dismissed with liberty to file a review petition.Special appeal dismissed. *******