JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 04.08.2016 by which their engagement as Data-entry Operator has been discontinued purportedly on the ground that they were paid honorarium under 13th Finance Commission. 2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the impugned order proceeds on a wrong factual premise and they who were appointed through a valid procedure adopted by the employer cannot be replaced through another set of Data-entry Operators who also are contractual employees. 3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioners to fortify the aforesaid contention has relied on a decision in Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others , (2007) 13 SCC 292 . 4. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioner nos. 2, 4, 12, 20, 22 and 27 who participated in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2016 published in daily newspaper-Hindustan on 18.08.2016 have been again selected and appointed as Accounts Clerk-cum-Data-entry Computer Operator. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition on their behalf has been rendered infructuous. 6. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis on honorarium of Rs. 13,300/- per month. Their appointment was purely temporary and it was under 13th Finance. The fact that these posts have been continued under the 14th Finance becomes irrelevant when it is found that a fresh advertisement for appointment on the post of Accounts Clerk-cum-Data-entry Computer Operator was issued. No order staying the selection process in Advertisement No. 01 of 2016-17 was passed by this Court and in the mean-time appointments pursuant to the said advertisement have been made. Now since selection pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement has been completed and 42 persons have already been appointed; total 63 posts of Accounts Clerk-cum-Data-entry Computer Operator were advertised, the petitioners who either did not apply or have not been selected in the subsequent exercise cannot claim their continuance in service by virtue of their previous selection. A temporary or ad-hoc employee cannot seek continuance of his engagement for an infinite period. 7. Challenge thrown to the impugned order dated 04.08.2016 and subsequently to Advertisement No. 01 of 2016-17 is on the ground that one set of ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced through another set of ad-hoc employees. A temporary or ad-hoc employee cannot seek continuance of his engagement for an infinite period. 7. Challenge thrown to the impugned order dated 04.08.2016 and subsequently to Advertisement No. 01 of 2016-17 is on the ground that one set of ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced through another set of ad-hoc employees. What shall be the nature of appointment and how the appointments shall be made are the issues which fall exclusively within the domain of the Executive. If the employer decides to make contractual appointments, the Courts cannot interfere with decision of the employer, though appointment on permanent basis is always desirable. It is not a case in which by an executive order one set of employees have been replaced by another set of employees. Through a proper selection pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2016-17 applicants have been appointed on the post of Accounts Clerk-cum-Data-entry Computer Operator, may be it is again contractual appointment. Reliance on the decision in Hargurpratap Singh case is clearly distinguishable on facts. Only right an applicant can insist upon is equality in treatment; they had an opportunity to participate in the selection process. The petitioners who did not apply pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2016-17, may be because they do not possess the qualifications under this advertisement, cannot claim that they must be appointed on the posts which have remained vacant. All that can be done in the aforesaid facts of this case is that to direct the respondents to initiate a fresh process for appointment on the unfilled posts of Accounts Clerk-cum-Data-entry Computer Operator. 8. Ordered accordingly. 9. The respondent authority may take a decision to grant relaxation in age to the petitioners, if permissible. Within three months the process for appointment shall be initiated by issuing the Advertisement. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of.