JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Since common questions of law and facts arise in these petitions, the same are taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners admittedly are the employees appointed through out source basis and had claimed regularization of their services in the department i.e. High Court and in the alternate claimed preferential right of consideration and sought necessary amendment in the rules by filing CWP No. 1026 of 2015, titled as ''Sant Ram and others versus High Court of Himachal Pradesh'' and CWP No. 745 of 2015, titled as ''Himanshu Thakur and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others''. 3. Both these petitions came to be dismissed vide detailed judgment passed by this Court on 06.05.2016. However, the said judgment was assailed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 14348- 14349/2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.05.2016 which reads as follows:- "UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioners. She pointed out the Rules framed by the High Courts of Calcutta, Tripura, Orissa & Assam, provision has been made in the Rules themselves for absorption of the existing System Officers and System Assistants who were earlier recruited on contractual basis. Though the learned counsel submitted that these Rules were placed before the High Court, we do not find any indication or reference to the above said statutory Rules in the impugned judgment. We, therefore, feel that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to specifically bring it to the notice of the High Court and seek for parity and leave it for the High Court to decide for grant of any relief or not. In order to enable the petitioners to approach the High Court by way of a review, we grant time till 20.5.2016. Till such time, the status quo of the petitioners shall not be disturbed. Thereafter, it is for the High Court to pass appropriate orders as to their continuation or otherwise. Thereafter, it is open for the petitioners to workout their remedy against the order passed by the High Court. With the above observations and directions, the Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 4. Thereafter, it is for the High Court to pass appropriate orders as to their continuation or otherwise. Thereafter, it is open for the petitioners to workout their remedy against the order passed by the High Court. With the above observations and directions, the Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 4. It is on the basis of the aforesaid order that the petitioners have now sought review of the judgment of this Court dated 06.05.2016. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 6. At the outset, it is fairly stated by Shri B.C.Negi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners that the representation made by the petitioners before the Hon''ble Supreme Court to the effect that the rules framed by various High Courts had not been considered, is not factually correct, as this fact was duly considered by this Court specifically in paragraphs No.45 and 46 of the impugned judgment. 7. However, Shri Negi would urge that while passing the impugned judgment, the Court has not taken into consideration the copy of the National Policy (for short ''Policy'') and Action Plan for implementation of information and communication technology in the Indian Judiciary dated 01.08.2005, wherein, it was clearly envisaged that the technical manpower recruited for implementation of the aforesaid ''policy'' would be absorbed in the regular cadre of the Courts for which the State Government in consultation with the High Court would make appropriate provisions in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. However, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified by this Court on 10.11.2014 clearly reflect the absence of any provision qua absorption/regularization of technical manpower recruited for implementation of the aforesaid ''policy''. Whereas, in similar rules framed by various other High Courts, there exists a provision qua absorption/regularization of technical manpower recruited for implementation of the aforesaid ''policy''. 8. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly without merit for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioners, who are working as System Officers and System Assistants, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, had never been appointed under the ''policy'' (supra) and had in fact been appointed by the society named DOEACC. 8. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly without merit for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioners, who are working as System Officers and System Assistants, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, had never been appointed under the ''policy'' (supra) and had in fact been appointed by the society named DOEACC. How and in what manner, the petitioners came to be appointed has already been dealt with in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the judgment dated 06.05.2016 which reads thus: "4. The petitioners are working as System Officers and System Assistants in the different Courts throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh. They have sought quashing of advertisement issued on 10.12.2014 calling for appointment to the posts of Computer Programmer and Assistant Programmer and have further sought modification of the service Rules for the posts of Computer Programmer and Assistant Programmer seeking incorporation of a provision therein for absorption of the existing incumbents holding the posts of System Officers and System Assistants in consonance with the provisions made in the "National Policy and Action Plan for Implementation of Information Technology in the Indian Judiciary prepared by E-Committee of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. 5. The facts, in brief, may be noticed. The Hon''ble Supreme Court with a view to computerize the Indian Judiciary, constituted E-Committee and on its recommendation framed National Policy on 1.8.2005. DOEACC (for short ''Society'') was made the Nodal Agency. As per the policy decision, cadre of Trouble Shooters(technical manpower) for different Courts was to be created and in terms of the National Policy, posts were to be created for the conversion of Courts into E-Courts. The recommendation of the E-Committee was accepted. On account of non-availability of Society in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Department of Information Technology, vide communication dated 2.9.2008 empanelled M/s New Horizons India Ltd. as the agency for providing technical manpower for the High Court and District Courts. 6. The Society issued advertisement to fill up 22 vacancies, pursuant to which petitioner No.3 Rohit Singh was appointed as System Assistant on contract basis vide appointment letter dated 27.9.2011. Thereafter, the appointments were made against the posts which were created for the purposes of conversion of the Courts through E-Courts in August, 2013. 6. The Society issued advertisement to fill up 22 vacancies, pursuant to which petitioner No.3 Rohit Singh was appointed as System Assistant on contract basis vide appointment letter dated 27.9.2011. Thereafter, the appointments were made against the posts which were created for the purposes of conversion of the Courts through E-Courts in August, 2013. The National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (for short ''Institute'') advertised three posts of System Officer and one post of System Assistant in August, 2013, pursuant to which, some of the other petitioners were selected by the selection committee." 9. That apart, the appointment of the petitioners admittedly was not made by the High Court or any of the Subordinate Courts and even otherwise the conditions of their appointments clearly envisaged cessation at the end of the fixed tenure. 10. Apart from the above, in terms of the comprehensive guidelines that were framed on 06.06.2017, the petitioners themselves had given undertakings to abide by these guidelines, wherein, in para-7, it was clearly stipulated that the selection was purely contractual in nature and would not confer any right of permanent absorption. 11. More importantly, unlike other High Courts, where the appointments were made under the ''policy'', the petitioners in the present case were appointed on out source basis and, therefore, in absence of any relationship of "employeremployee" between the petitioners and the High Court, obviously, the petitioners cannot claim any preferential right of appointment. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no error apparent on the face of the records which may warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, both these review petitions are dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.