JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners, who have been temporarily engaged on academic arrangement basis in 10+2 Schools for the sessions 2018-19 Winter Zone in District Poonch in the discipline of Botany, Philosophy, Sociology, Zoology, Urdu, English and Computer Science in District Poonch, have approached this Court seeking following reliefs : (a) commanding the respondents not to replace or substitute them by any other contractual appointee or by transferring them from their respective Government Higher Secondary Schools to another institution till their cases for confirmation/regularization against the post of Lecturers in their respective discipline is considered, and (b) commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to serve as contractual lecturers on the posts held by them till the petitioners complete seven years of service as provided in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provision) Act, 2010. 2. Contention of the petitioners is that since they have been working as Lecturers on contractual basis on academic arrangement in Government Higher Secondary Schools of District Poonch and they are sought to be replaced by respondents by other contractual appointees or by transferring regularly recruited lecturers which will adversely affect their rights. They, further submit that if they are not allowed to continue to work as Lecturers on contractual basis on academic arrangement, it will further deprive them of their right to seek regularization of their services to the said posts. Petitioners further state that they have been working continuously uninterruptedly against clear vacancies of the post of Lecturers in their respective discipline in the different Government Higher Secondary Schools pursuant to their appointment and as such, their replacement or substitution by other contractual lecturers would be arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to the provisions of Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Per Contra, Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that the petitioners were engaged temporarily on academic arrangement basis in 10+2 School only for session 2018-19 Winter Zone in Poonch pursuant to advertisement Notice No.CEO/P/GAZ/38068-71 dated 20.02.2018 under various orders of the Chief Education Officer, Poonch. This temporary engagement was made by the CEO, Poonch on approval of the Selection Committee on the basis of their merit. This temporary engagement was made by the CEO, Poonch on approval of the Selection Committee on the basis of their merit. Their engagement orders, as annexed with petition, clearly state that :- ‘As approved by the Selection Committee, purely on the basis of Merit, the following PG candidates are hereby engaged temporarily on academic arrangement basis in 10+2 Schools falling in Winter Zones of this District in different subjects on consolidated wages @ Rs.7,000/- pm initially for a period of 59 days which can be extended to the requirement of the department/school by giving two days break or till the post is filled up on regular basis by DPC/PSC or by transfer whichever is earlier.’ 4. In terms of Condition Nos. 04 & 05 of the said orders of engagement, it was also stipulated as under :- ‘4. An affidavit duly attested by the 1st Class Magistrate to the effect that the engaged candidate will not claim for any permanent job and service based on this engagement and is liable to be terminated if the concerned post is filled up by PSC/DPC or by transfer without any further notice. The candidate will also give an undertaking to the effect that he/she is not already engaged as RET/3rd Tr./Gen. Line Tr. in Education Department. Moreover, he/she is not serving in any other Department in any cadre. 5. The engagement of the candidates in different subjects is only for the Session 2018-19. For the session 2019-20, fresh applications will be invited and new merit list, based on applications received from PG candidates will be framed afresh for 2018-19 session. 5. Thus, as per the petitioners’ own annexure, that is, order of engagement, the petitioners have accepted the engagement on temporary basis and had joined on the said post on fulfilling certain conditions. The petitioners have also given an affidavit that they will not claim any permanent job and service based on this engagement. Further, the fact that these engagements of the petitioners were only for the Sessions 2018-19, and fresh applications would be invited and new merit list based on applications of the candidates, who have applied afresh, will be considered for the sessions 2018-19 having accepted these conditions, the petitioners cannot now turn around and challenge the same as being arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16. 6. 6. Thus the relief sought by the petitioners, that they may not be replaced or substituted or transferred to another institution till their cases for confirmation/regularization to the post of Lecturer, is untenable in view of the fact that they have accepted engagement on temporary basis for session 2018-19, and for the session 2019-20, fresh applications would be invited and new merit list prepared and they will not claim any permanent job on the basis of this engagement. More so, their orders of engagement itself state that they will be appointed initially for a period of 59 days which can be extended to the requirement of the department/school by giving two days break or till the post is filled up on regular basis by DPC/PSC or by transfer whichever is earlier. Therefore, there is no right of the petitioners to continue beyond the period of 59 days. They can continue only if the department or school requires their services. 7. This has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Anita & Anr. reported as AIR 2016 SC 3333 has held as under :- The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the government. The appointments of respondents were made initially for eleven months but were renewed twice and after serving the maximum contractual period, the services of the respondents came to an end and the Government initiated a fresh process of selection. Conditions of respondents’ engagement is governed by the terms of agreement. After having accepted contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. Furthermore, respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria.” 8. Thus, the petitioners having applied for the post of Lecturer for temporary engagement on academic basis and having accepted the appointment with all its conditions and being a beneficiary of the selection process cannot now turn around and challenge the same as being arbitrary and violative of Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution. Thus, the petitioners having applied for the post of Lecturer for temporary engagement on academic basis and having accepted the appointment with all its conditions and being a beneficiary of the selection process cannot now turn around and challenge the same as being arbitrary and violative of Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution. This has also been observed by this Hon’ble Court in 2006 (1) SLJ 308 which stated that a person appointed on contractual basis has no right to seek continuance in service after expiry of the period of contract even if the order of contract or contractual appointment envisages that appointment will continue till appointment is made on regular basis. The petitioners having participated in the selection process and being appointed in accordance with their merit cannot deny this opportunity to the other candidates, who would become eligible for the said post and would have opportunity of competing for the said post in accordance with the merit. Thus, all the candidates, who are eligible and who seek, to be appointed as Lecturer in 10+2 would have equal right of competing for the said post as and when they are advertised. Thus, the only right of the petitioners is that they can apply and participate pursuant to any fresh selection process which is initiated for the next academic session by the respondents. 9. This view also finds force in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Brahma Dutt Tripathi, AIR 2006 SC 3244 and this view has already been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , by holding that temporary employees, such employees, do not have any right to regular or public employment further temporary, contractual, causal, ad hoc or daily wage, public employment must be deemed to be accepted by the employee concerned fully knowing the nature of it and consequences following from it. 10. Therefore, contractual employment comes to an end at the end of the contract, an appointment on daily wages or casual basis comes to an end when it is discontinued and a temporary appointment comes to an end on expiry of its term. No employee so appointed can claim to be made permanent on expiry of appointment. 10. Therefore, contractual employment comes to an end at the end of the contract, an appointment on daily wages or casual basis comes to an end when it is discontinued and a temporary appointment comes to an end on expiry of its term. No employee so appointed can claim to be made permanent on expiry of appointment. Thus, at the end of the term, the engagement comes to an end and for the next session when the fresh applications are invited, the already engaged candidates can also apply and pass through the selection process in which selection will be based on merits. 11. In view of the aforesaid and the fact that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for indulgence by this Court, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. IA also stands dismissed as such.