JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners, who have been engaged on contractual basis as 10+2 Lecturers in School Education Department by virtue of various Government orders, have approached this Court seeking the following relief: Commanding the respondents not to replace/substitute the petitioners by any set of contractual appointee or temporary appointee. 2. Contention of the petitioners is that they are still working as Lecturers on contractual basis in their respective institutions with their dedication and to the satisfaction of the head of Institutions and have the requisite experience to impart education to the students. They further state that they are engaged as 10+2 lecturers on contractual basis, and have undergone the process and qualified the same, as such, are willing to continue their services as 10+2 lecturers in their respective schools under consolidated salary unless and until the vacancy occupied by the petitioners is filled by regular selection or by transfer of any permanent employee. They, further submit they have been continuing on academic arrangement but have been given understanding that they will be replaced or substituted by another contractual/temporary appointee and the respondents are resorting to policy of hire and fire. Petitioners further state that since the petitioners are working continuously and uninterruptedly against clear vacancies of the post of Lecturers in their respective disciplines in the different Government Higher Secondary Schools pursuant to their appointment orders and as such, their replacement or substitution by other contractual lecturers would be arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to the provisions of Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Per Contra, Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that the petitioners were engaged temporarily on academic arrangement basis in 10+2 Schools only for session 2018-19 Winter Zone in Ramban pursuant to Government Order No.1346-Edu of 1998 dated 16.06.2018 under various orders of the Chief Education Officer, Ramban. This temporary engagement was made by the CEO, Ramban on approval of the Selection Committee on the basis of their merit. Their engagement orders, as annexed with petition, clearly state that:- ‘In pursuance to Govt. Order No.1346-Edu of 1998 dated 16.06.1998 to meet the temporary requirement of the subject teacher to teach 10+2 classes in Hr. Sec. Schools, the engagement of the following post graduate candidates subject wise on academic arrangement is hereby ordered with the following terms and conditions for a period of 58 days.’ 4. Order No.1346-Edu of 1998 dated 16.06.1998 to meet the temporary requirement of the subject teacher to teach 10+2 classes in Hr. Sec. Schools, the engagement of the following post graduate candidates subject wise on academic arrangement is hereby ordered with the following terms and conditions for a period of 58 days.’ 4. In terms of Conditions of the said orders of engagement, it was also stipulated as under :- That the candidate so engaged will furnish an affidavit duly attested by the Judicial Magistrate to the effect that he/she will not claim for Govt. job on the basis of this engagement and shall not file any suit in Court of law for continuation/permanent job on the basis of said engagement. That the engagement made will automatically cease and no separate order is required to be issued in case the subject lecturer is posted in the institution either through Departmental Promotion or selection through public service commission or by transfer of lecturer/end of session etc. by the Department whichever be earlier. 5. Thus, as per the petitioners’ order of engagement, the petitioners have accepted the engagement on temporary basis and had joined on the said post on fulfilling certain conditions. The petitioners have also given an affidavit that they will not claim any permanent job and service based on this engagement. Further, the fact that these engagements of the petitioners were only for the Sessions 2018-19, and as per the conditions of the engagement, the engagement made would automatically cease and no separate order is required to be issued in case the subject lecturer is posted in the institution either through Departmental Promotion or selection through public service commission or by transfer of lecturer/end of session etc. by the Department whichever be earlier, therefore, fresh applications would be invited and new merit list based on applications of the candidates, who have applied afresh, will be considered for the next sessions. Petitioners having accepted these conditions cannot now turn around and challenge the same as being arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. Petitioners having accepted these conditions cannot now turn around and challenge the same as being arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners, that they may not be replaced or substituted by any set of contractual temporary appointees is untenable in view of the fact that they have accepted engagement on certain terms and conditions for a period of 58 days, which specifically state that at the end of session etc. by the department, their engagement will automatically cease and no separate order would be required to be issued. 7. This has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & ors. v. Anita & anr. reported as AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3333 has held as under:- The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the government. The appointments of respondents were made initially for eleven months but were renewed twice and after serving the maximum contractual period, the services of the respondents came to an end and the Government initiated a fresh process of selection. Conditions of respondents’ engagement is governed by the terms of agreement. After having accepted contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. Furthermore, respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria.” 8. Thus, the petitioners having applied for the post of Lecturer for temporary engagement on academic basis and having accepted the appointment with all its conditions and being a beneficiary of the selection process cannot now turn around and challenge the same as being arbitrary and violative of Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution. This has also been observed by this Hon’ble Court in 2006 (1) SLJ 308 which stated that a person appointed on contractual basis has no right to seek continuance in service after expiry of the period of contract even if the order of contract or contractual appointment envisages that appointment will continue till appointment is made on regular basis. This has also been observed by this Hon’ble Court in 2006 (1) SLJ 308 which stated that a person appointed on contractual basis has no right to seek continuance in service after expiry of the period of contract even if the order of contract or contractual appointment envisages that appointment will continue till appointment is made on regular basis. The petitioners having participated in the selection process and being appointed in accordance with their merit cannot deny this opportunity to the other candidates, who would become eligible for the said post and would have opportunity of competing for the said post in accordance with the merit. Thus, all the candidates, who are eligible and who seek, to be appointed as Lecturer in 10+2 would have equal right of competing for the said post as and when they are advertised. Thus, the only right of the petitioners is that they can apply and participate in any fresh selection process which is initiated by the respondents. 9. This view also finds force in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & ors. Vs. Brahma Dutt Tripathi, AIR 2006 SC 3244 and this view has already been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State Of Karnataka and ors. vs Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , by holding that temporary employees, such employees, do not have any right to regular or public employment further temporary, contractual, causal, ad hoc or daily wage, public employment must be deemed to be accepted by the employee concerned fully knowing the nature of it and consequences following from it. 10. Therefore, contractual employment comes to an end at the end of the contract, an appointment on daily wages or casual basis comes to an end when it is discontinued and a temporary appointment comes to an end on expiry of its term. No employee so appointed can claim to be made permanent on expiry of appointment. Thus, at the end of the term, the engagement comes to an end and for the next session when the fresh applications are invited, the already engaged candidates can also apply and pass through the selection process in which selection will be based on merits. 11. No employee so appointed can claim to be made permanent on expiry of appointment. Thus, at the end of the term, the engagement comes to an end and for the next session when the fresh applications are invited, the already engaged candidates can also apply and pass through the selection process in which selection will be based on merits. 11. In view of the aforesaid and the fact that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for indulgence by this Court, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. IA also stands dismissed as such.