JUDGMENT : Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter can be disposed of today itself. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to decide the same. 2. All the aforesaid writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved therein is identical. 3. The petitioners were engaged on contract basis on the various posts and their date of appointment extends from 2006 to 2016 meaning thereby that, some of them are in service since last 10, 9 and 8 years as well. Suddenly, they were informed verbally that they are not required to discharge their duties any more. Thus, forcing the petitioners to approach this Court by way of present writ petitions. 4. Reply has been filed. 5. It is contended by Mr. Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents that in pursuance to the Annual General Meeting convened for the financial year 2012-2013, a resolution was passed and a decision was taken to permit the bank to make the recruitment by sanctioning the posts as per their requirement. No sanction has been granted on the additional posts sought by the respondent bank till date. However, as per their own chart available on record, they have only 18 sanctioned posts, out of which 08 stand occupied by regular incumbents leaving only 10 posts with them. The petitioners whose services have been verbally dispensed with are 19 in numbers and since the petitioners were appointed through backdoor entry, it was thought appropriate to dispense with their services and make fresh appointments in accordance with the Order dated 18.10.2016 (Annx.R-3/1) passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. As per the said order, the respondent bank was directed to make appointment afresh on contractual basis through the N.G.O. 6. It is evident from the facts narrated before this Court that the respondents are moving ahead to replace the petitioners who are contractual employees by another set of contractual employees. It is well settled proposition of law that the contractual employees cannot be replaced by the similar set of contractual employees. The principle of hire and fire cannot be allowed in this arbitrary manner. It is also evident from Annexure-R-3/2 that the respondent bank had already initiated the proposal for filling up these posts on regular basis. However, the same is still in the pipeline and no final decision has been taken on the same. 7. The principle of hire and fire cannot be allowed in this arbitrary manner. It is also evident from Annexure-R-3/2 that the respondent bank had already initiated the proposal for filling up these posts on regular basis. However, the same is still in the pipeline and no final decision has been taken on the same. 7. In view of the above and since it is the admitted case of the respondents that they are filling up the posts against which the petitioners were working on contract, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to fill up 11 sanctioned posts within three weeks from today amongst the petitioners only as per their seniority and they shall be allowed to continue till as such time the said posts are filled by the regular selection. The petitioners will be at liberty to participate in the said selection process for regular appointment as and when the respondents decide to fill the same by such method. 8. It is clarified that in case, the respondents wish to fill up any post, which may not be a sanctioned post but is otherwise required, by similar set of employees as petitioners, the remaining of the petitioners will be considered against such appointment as per their seniority.