ORDER : This writ petition is filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents-Union Bank of India seeking following directions:- (i) to immediately and forthwith consider the candidature of the petitioners strictly in terms of the recruitment policy framed by the respondents with respect to the absorption of contractual appointees in view of the provision of Rule-15 of recruitment policy implemented w.e.f. 24.01.2011. (ii) to consider the claim of the of the petitioners in parity with other similarly situated persons who have recently been absorbed working on the post of Customer Relationship Executive in other banks including State Bank of India, Canara Bank, IDBI, etc. 2. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while arguing the case has submitted that the petitioners after getting the degree in Master of Business Administration has submitted their applications in pursuance to advertisement published in the Month of September, 2010 issued by the General Manager, HRM, Union Bank of India for the appointment as Customer Relationship Executive wherein they have been called upon to participate in the selection process and accordingly they have appeared in the written test followed by interview and after being found successful, they have been offered with the offer of appointment as Customer Relationship Executive vide letters dated 18.05.2011 and 22.06.2011 respectively, which the petitioners have accepted and accordingly joined on 02.06.2011 and 01.07.2011 respectively. The petitioners have discharged their services without any complaint from any quarter and while they were in service, the respondent Bank has come out with a recruitment policy implemented w.e.f. 24.01.2011 wherein the provision for contractual appointment has been made which also stipulates that the Bank may absorb the contractees on regular full time post, as per the terms and conditions with the prior approval of the Board. 3. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel, although has placed the recruitment policy implemented w.e.f 24.01.2011, but he also submits that there might be another recruitment policy at the time of the appointment of the petitioners. In view of the provision of Rule 15, the submission has been made that the services of the petitioners since have been found to be satisfactory and therefore the benefit of provision of Rule 15 ought to have been given to the petitioners. He further submits that the others have been given aforesaid benefit as would be evident from Annexure-5. In view of the provision of Rule 15, the submission has been made that the services of the petitioners since have been found to be satisfactory and therefore the benefit of provision of Rule 15 ought to have been given to the petitioners. He further submits that the others have been given aforesaid benefit as would be evident from Annexure-5. Further, submission has been made that in the similar circumstances, the other High Courts of the country have passed an interim order allowing such category of contract appointees in service and therefore he also sought for a direction in the similar light. 4. Mr. P.S.A. Swaroop Pati, learned counsel appearing for the Bank has submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioners have been appointed on contract basis containing therein certain terms and conditions, although, the services have also been extended, but the contract ultimately ended on 01.06.2014 and therefore the petitioners are not in service and hence, the petitioners cannot take aid of the absorption in service in the light of the provision of Rule 15 of Recruitment Policy implemented w.e.f. 24.01.2011. Since the petitioners have approached this Court only on 22.05.2015 by way of filing the instant writ petition for seeking a direction for their absorption in service. He submits that since the petitioners have been separated from service in terms of the offer of appointment and therefore there cannot be any question of absorption in service. He further submits by reiterating the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that others have been given the similar benefit that is relied upon the Annexure-5 annexed to the writ petition. He submits that it is evident from Annexure-5 that the concerned contractual employee has been absorbed in service meaning thereby, he was on service and therefore the Annexure-5 cannot be said to be an order to take advantage of parity since herein the petitioners’ contract have already been rescinded w.e.f. 01.06.2014. 5. So far as the interim order annexed by the petitioners passed by the other High Courts are concerned, he submits that an appropriate order does not discloses regarding the factual aspect related to the writ petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions and therefore no reliance can be given to the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid orders. 6. 5. So far as the interim order annexed by the petitioners passed by the other High Courts are concerned, he submits that an appropriate order does not discloses regarding the factual aspect related to the writ petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions and therefore no reliance can be given to the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid orders. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident from material available on record that the petitioners have been appointed on contract basis to work as Customer Relationship Executive in pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure-1) annexed to the writ petition. It is evident from the aforesaid advertisement that the period of contract was initially for a period of 2 years which may be reviewed and renewed on the performance of the individuals for a further period of 2 years as would be evident from the terms and conditions of the advertisement as contained in condition No.6. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioners have been asked to participate in the criteria fixed for the selection process in which they have been declared to be successful and thereafter they have been issued with offer of appointment to render their duties initially for a period of 2 years. It is evident from Annexure-4 annexed to the writ petition that the contract of the petitioners in service have been extended for a period of one year from the date of expiry of their present contract, thereafter the period of contract of petitioner No.1 expired on 01.06.2014 and of the petitioner No.2 expired on 30.06.2014. It is, thus, evident that the petitioners were no more in service after 01.06.2014 and 30.06.2014 respectively. 7. Thereafter this writ petition has been filed on 22.05.2015 seeking a direction for their absorption in services in the light of the provision contained in the recruitment policy as under Rule 15 which contains a provision giving discretion to the Bank for absorption of the service of the contractual appointees on regular full time post. 8. 7. Thereafter this writ petition has been filed on 22.05.2015 seeking a direction for their absorption in services in the light of the provision contained in the recruitment policy as under Rule 15 which contains a provision giving discretion to the Bank for absorption of the service of the contractual appointees on regular full time post. 8. It is not in dispute that the absorption relates to taking service of the employee in the regular establishment, meaning thereby, an employee can be absorbed in service if he is in service either on contract basis or on daily rated basis, but he must be on the roll of the service and then the question of absorption would arise. Here, it is admitted case of the petitioners that after 01.06.2014 and 30.06.2014, they were not in service in pursuance to expiry of the contract period, and hence, on the date of filing of the writ petition, the petitioners were not in service, therefore, there is no question of absorption of the petitioners in service. 9. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in course of arguments has placed reliance upon Annexure-5 to substantiate his argument that the similarly situated employees have been given the benefit of absorption by the approval having been accorded by the Court but it is evident from the aforesaid decision of the Board as contained in Annexure-5 that employees were in service on the date when the Board has taken decision and therefore, no parity can be drawn in favour of the petitioners from Annexure-5 since admittedly the petitioners were not in service after 01.06.2014 and 30.06.2014 respectively. 10. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned that the other High Courts have passed interim order and as such in the similar line, interim order may be passed, I am not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners for the reason that interim order cannot be said to be binding upon the High Court, moreover, from the interim order, it has not been reflected that what is the nature of case of the employees in whose favour, interim order has been passed. 11. 11. Be that as it may, this Court is concerned with the principle of absorption and since the petitioners are not in service, hence, no order can be passed as on the date. 12. Since the petitioners were not on roll on the date of filing of the writ petition i.e., on 22.05.2015. Furthermore, the petitioners have approached to this Court only after contract having rescinded and therefore in my considered view, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for passing a positive direction in their favour, hence the writ petition lacks merits, and in consequence thereof, the same is dismissed.