JUDGMENT : There is delay of 61 days in preferring the appeal. 2. On going through the application (I.A. No. 3632/2018) for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within time. We accordingly condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Respondent/writ petitioner had been engaged in the post of Computer Data Entry Operator with effect from 01st February 2007 on Daily Wage basis in Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation Limited. The writ petitioner had approached the learned First Court with a grievance originating from a Notice Inviting Tender dated 4th June 2017 in relation to manpower supply to the said Housing Corporation. The respondent’s specific grievance was in relation to supply of manpower to the post of Data Entry Operator. The writ petitioner wanted to remain undisturbed in the capacity she was working. Her apprehension was that since the post in which she is serving now has also been made subject matter of the tender along with other posts, she was likely to be replaced by the contractor appointees. Relying upon several decisions delivered by different Benches of this Court, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in the following terms. “As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, I hereby quash and set aside NIT No. 04/2017-18 issued under letter No. CE/2566/612 (WE) dated 04.06.2017 (Annexure-6). The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for continuation on the post subject to availability of vacant post in the Department. The respondents are further directed not to disturb the petitioner from working on the post of computer Data Entry Operator till the final decision of regular appointment is taken. The respondents are free to initiate process for regular appointment through open competition to the post of computer Data Entry Operator and also to give opportunity to the petitioner by giving relaxation of her age, if required, for participating in the regular appointment in accordance with law. Let it be made clear that engagement of petitioner being contractual in nature, it would be governed by its terms and conditions. The respondents are further directed to undertake recruitment process to such post in a regular manner as per policy decision of the respondent-State taken in that regard. With the above observation and direction, this writ application stands disposed of.” 4. The respondents are further directed to undertake recruitment process to such post in a regular manner as per policy decision of the respondent-State taken in that regard. With the above observation and direction, this writ application stands disposed of.” 4. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the learned First Court ought not to have had quashed the entire tender process as the writ petitioner had come with her individual grievance for the post of Data Entry Operator and the tender covered supply of manpower for several posts in the appellant organization. He has also submitted that as a policy, even when a contractor is engaged to supply manpower, the said organization is not replacing the existing incumbents occupying different posts in whatever capacity they are occupying and the writ petitioner also shall not be disengaged from the post of Data Entry Operator, but she will have to serve under the successful bidder in the said tender. In paragraphs-7 to 11 of the Memorandum of Appeal, statements to that effect have been made by the appellants. 5. In view of such statement made on behalf of the appellants, we invalidate the order of learned First Court to the extent entire tender process has been quashed. The tender process shall be revived. Admitted position is that the respondent-writ petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis and she cannot have, in that capacity, vested legal right to permanently remain in that post. No policy decision has been shown to us by the respondent–writ petitioner which would sustain her claim on that count. We make it clear that this direction of ours however shall be subject to the condition that though status of the Respondent/writ petitioner may change from that being engaged by the appellants directly to that by the contractor to be selected by the appellants, the appellants shall ensure that she is not disturbed from her engagement in the same post and her emoluments or salary level is also maintained. Rest of the directions contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge as regards the steps to be taken for regular appointment by the appellants as also relaxation of age shall remain. The order of learned First Court shall stand modified to the above extent. 6. Appeal is partly allowed, but without any order as to costs.