JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner giving further extension of service. 2. The facts, in brief, is that in pursuance to advertisement published for appointment of Lady Supervisor, Statistical assistant and Clerk-cum-Typist on contract basis, the petitioner applied for and was selected for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist for Child Development Project, Pathargama initially for the period 30.01.2006 to 29.01.2007. Thereafter, on rendering satisfactory services as averred, her contract was extended for the next year. But, all of a sudden for the next term i.e. year 2008 to 2009 her services was not extended, however, services of other similarly situated persons were extended. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court for redressal of her grievances. 3. Heard Ms. Abha Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C to learned G.A IV for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that services of the petitioner has been dispensed with without serving any show cause notice or affording opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the counter affidavit mainly two ground have been taken for not extending the contract of the petitioner: (i).She does not belong to the concerned district and (ii).She has no knowledge of typing. In this regard, it has been submitted that in the advertisement it has been averred that preference would be given to the Home District candidates but there is no mention that candidates of other district would not be appointed and further even for the sake of argument it is presumed that the petitioner does not have knowledge of typing then how her services was extended after one year satisfactory service and she served for two years. Hence, both the grounds are not sustainable and she deserves to be continued on the post in question. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that matter of illegal appointment was inquired by the District Social Welfare Officer, Godda wherein it was found that petitioner has no knowledge of typing and by making manipulation she somehow managed to secure appointment. Besides, she does not belong to the concerned district. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that matter of illegal appointment was inquired by the District Social Welfare Officer, Godda wherein it was found that petitioner has no knowledge of typing and by making manipulation she somehow managed to secure appointment. Besides, she does not belong to the concerned district. Hence, basing of such report furnished by the District Social Welfare Officer, Godda, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide its meeting dated 07.05.2008 stopped the extension of the services of the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist and after serving about two years, the services of the petitioner was not extended on the basis of report submitted by District Social Welfare Officer, wherein it is stated that the petitioner does not have knowledge of typing, which is certainly the main criteria for the post in question. Furthermore, the enquiry officer has also held that there was manipulation in the marks obtained against typing test. 7. On perusal of appointment letter as well as 'agreement of contract', which has duly been signed by the parties, it appears that it has unambiguously been mentioned that the extension of service of the petitioner is subject to satisfaction of the authorities concerned and the Deputy Commissioner has been empowered to dispense with the services of petitioner without any prior information to the petitioner. Hence, there is no illegality in not extending the services of the petitioner for the reasons as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no reason to issue the writ of mandamus to grant relief, as sought for. Accordingly, the writ application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.