ORDER : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. This bunch of 18 writ petitions agitates a common issue, and is hence, with consent of counsel appearing for the parties, being considered and decided by this common order. The facts of SBCWP No. 3908/2019, Dr. Chitra Pandey and Karishma Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, will be adverted to for the purpose of adjudication of the issue agitated. 2. Under challenge is the circular dated 10-8-2018, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Department of Medical Education to the Principal cum Controller, SMS Medical College and attached Hospital, Jaipur on the matter of appointment of Senior Residents. 3. The petitioners Chitra Pandey and Karishma Goyal were appointed as Senior Residents (Eyes) along with 7 others in various branches of Medicine by the Principal cum Controller, SMS Medical College and Hospital Jaipur for a period of one year or till further orders purely on temporary basis. The petitioners joined to the posts, to which they were appointed, without any demur or objection pertaining to the tenure of one year or till passing of further order. The case now set up before this court by them is that the circular dated 10-8-2018, providing that Senior Residents, who complete the tenure of one year as per their appointment order/s, would be required to participate afresh in the process for selection as Senior Resident and be permitted, if selected afresh, to continue thereafter for only an aggregate total period of three years. The petitioners' case is that the circular dated 10-8-2018 is in the cross hairs of the Office Memorandum dated 11-3-1975 issued by the Central Government on the subject and the issue of "Residency scheme extension of tenure in respect of Senior Residents". It has been submitted that the aforesaid circular dated 10-8-2018 impliedly mandated a three year tenure for all Senior Residents. To buttress the aforesaid submission it has been pointed out that earlier the Principal cum Controller, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur used to advertised for appointment of Senior Residents upto a maximum period of three year with the intent that the initial temporary appointment of Senior Residents on one year tenure would be extended, except for very good reason, upto a period of three years as such three years experience on the said post would render the Senior Resident eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor etc. in the All India Medical Institutes as well as post Graduate Institutes of Medical Research Center Chandigarh (PGI Chandigarh). It has been submitted that the impugned circular dated 10-8-2018 arbitrarily negates the earlier practice of the State Government to the detriment of the petitioners, who, if not allowed to have a tenure of three years as Senior Residents, would be rendered ineligible, on count of lack of three years experience to apply for the post of Assistant Professors in All India Institutes/PGI Chandigarh. It has been submitted that hence, albeit the petitioners were indeed appointed as Senior Residents on temporary basis for a tenure of one year or till further orders vide appointment order dated 15-3-2017, they have a legitimate expectation that their appointment would be extended upto a period of three years. Moreso, as the petitioners have discharged the responsibilities of their assignment with due diligence and without any complaint. It has also been submitted that denying the petitioners extension as Senior Resident upto three years as per past practice and in some cases even currently is wholly arbitrary as also discriminatory and hence violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Reply of denial has been filed by respondents. It has been submitted that the clause 6 of the Medical Council of India Minimum Qualification of Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (hereafter 'the Regulations of 1998') was amended vide Gazette Notification dated 8-6-2017. There under the minimum teaching and research experience for the post of Assistant Professor was amended to as three years of Junior Resident in a recognized medical college in the concerned subject and one year as Senior Resident (underlining mine) in the concerned subject in a recognized medical college. It has been submitted that a Senior Resident is a person who does residency at a hospital following his appointment after having completed the post graduate course in the concerned subject and is below 40 years of age. Pursuant to aforesaid amendment a meeting was convened by the Principal cum Controller, SMS Medical College and Hospital Jaipur on 16-12-2017 and the impact of the amendment of the Regulations of 1998 considered. Thereupon in the context of the altered statutory architecture of the Regulations of 1998 a decision was taken that the post of Senior Residents needed to be advertised with a temporary tenure of one year. Thereupon in the context of the altered statutory architecture of the Regulations of 1998 a decision was taken that the post of Senior Residents needed to be advertised with a temporary tenure of one year. The post was to be advertised each year to facilitate equal opportunities to all eligible post graduates. It is important to note, it has been submitted that appointment only for one year as Senior Resident made, and which supplies necessary expenses to be considered for appointment as Assistant Professor in the subject concerned, yet each post available each year is also open to Senior Residents who have completed a tenure of upto two years. It was only following the aforesaid policy decision that the impugned --though innocuous--circular dated 10-8-2018 was issued. The circular does not seek to truncate the tenure of one year of one already appointed. It has been submitted that the said circular dated 10-8-2018 records the policy intent of the respondents to provide a larger catchment area of eligible post graduated candidates with one year Senior Resident for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors. 5. The respondents have submitted that the petitioners do not have a vested right under letter of appointment dated 15-3-2017 to continue beyond a period of one year and in any event after passing of further order in that regard. The circular dated 10-8-2018 has provided that a Senior Resident appointed prior to its issuance on completion of the tenure as reflected in the relevant letter of appointment would not be entitled to continue further but be free to apply for selection on comparison of inter se merit with candidates applying in a particular year. It has been submitted that in the background of the policy decision taken by the respondents the impugned circular dated 10-8-2018 cannot even remotely be challenged as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India moreso as no prejudice at all has been caused to the Senior Residents, such as petitioners, who have completed their one year tenure as per their letter of appointment. It has been submitted that the circular dated 10-8-2018 is a consequence of reasonable and conscious policy decision completely in consonance of the Regulations of 1998 as amended vide notification dated 8-6-2017. It has been submitted that the circular dated 10-8-2018 is a consequence of reasonable and conscious policy decision completely in consonance of the Regulations of 1998 as amended vide notification dated 8-6-2017. It has been pointed that under Entry 25 in the list III of the Constitution of India, the State Government is empowered to formulate rules inter alia in respect of medical education. This legislative power of the State Government is coterminous with its executive power and hence the State Government in the Medical department was wholly within its jurisdiction to take an administrative decision pertaining to the tenure for Senior Residents and prescribed procedure for their appointment. That is reflected in the impugned circular dated 10-8-2018. 6. The respondents further submit that in any event, these petitions are not maintainable on the doctrine of estoppel. The petitioners were appointed temporarily in terms of their appointment order dated 15-3-2017 for a period of one year or till further orders. That one year has long passed and the petitioners are merely using the legal process of this court for extension of the tenure after the respondents' decision to discontinue them, to which they are not legally entitled. They have no legal right at all to agitate before this court, as the letter of their appointment to the extent of fixing the period of one year in the first instance or till further orders was not and has not been challenged. Contrarily the petitioners accepted their letter of appointment with its condition as to tenure without demur and joined on the post of Senior Residents (eye). It has been further submitted that this court in SBCWP No. 18535/2018, Dr. Shimona Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan, held that clause 3 of circular dated 10-8-2018 reflected that it contemplates non extension of the period of incumbents already in position prior to the issuance of circular dated 10-8-2018 but did not curtailed the period for which the incumbents were initially appointed. It has been submitted that in the facts of the case the petition is misdirected, without a legal foundation, wholly baseless, a misuse of the court's process and hence is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. It has been submitted that in the facts of the case the petition is misdirected, without a legal foundation, wholly baseless, a misuse of the court's process and hence is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. I am of the considered view that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that it seeks to agitate a case and agitate a purported right in the cross hair of the conditions of the letter of appointment dated 15-3-2017, where under the temporary tenure of the petitioners as Senior Residents given out was one year or till further orders. The petitioners accepted the said letter of appointment with its condition as to tenure without any demur and joined in pursuance thereof. They have since completed the tenure of one year as Senior Resident. They cannot in the facts seek any legal protection. The conditions of the appointment order dated 15-3-2017 are not under challenge. The petitioners can have no cause of action regarding the circular dated 10-8-2018 as it protects their tenure under the letter of appointment dated 15-3-2017. A perusal of the said circular dated 10-8-2018 indicates that it is reflective of the policy decision of the State Government following the amendment of Regulations of 1998 vide Gazette Notification dated 8-6-2017, where under appointment to the post of Assistant Professor required experience only of one year as Senior Resident. In the context of aforesaid amendment of Regulations of 1998, the State Government consciously decided to enhance the catchment area of candidates eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor by generating an optimum of candidates with one year Senior Residency. It indeed is desirable in public interest to provide for initial period of one year tenure as Senior Resident. That policy under circular dated 10-8-2018 is formulated such that a maximum number of post graduate candidates can be appointed as Senior Residents and be available for consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors. Further the circular dated 10-8-2018, as noted above also does not exclude Senior Residents, who have completed upto even two years tenure from applying for a further tenure of one year as Senior Resident as a limit upto a period of three years as Senior Resident has been set. Further the circular dated 10-8-2018, as noted above also does not exclude Senior Residents, who have completed upto even two years tenure from applying for a further tenure of one year as Senior Resident as a limit upto a period of three years as Senior Resident has been set. The background of the circular dated 10-8-2018, as recorded above, cannot make it vulnerable to a challenge by invoking Articles 14 and 16 or for that matter Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners cannot, even remotely, argue that non extension of their tenure as Senior Resident, as in any event, contrary to their letter of appointment, is arbitrary or it has caused them any prejudice. 9. A contractual employee has no right to renewal of the term of employment beyond the terms of his contract and in absence of a statutory right in his favour. At best the employee can only claim due consideration as per prescribed procedure for extending his contract. So has been held by the Apex court in the case of Yogesh Mahajan Vs. AIIMS [ (2018) 3 SCC 218 ]. In the case of Committee of Management Vasanta College for Women Vs. Tribhuvan Nath Tripathi [ (1997) 2 SCC 560 ] the Apex Court held that there is no subsisting right to continue in service after the expiry of the period of ad hoc appointment. A temporary employee has no right to the post even for a day as of a right. In the case of Ramanuj Prasad Vs. Coal India Ltd. [ (2003) 10 SCC 152 ] the Apex Court held that when there is no right to continue to hold the post, no mandamus can be issued. 10. Further on a direction of this court vide order dated 8-4-2019, the Secretary Medical Education Hemant Kumar Gera has filed an affidavit. It has been submitted that rule 12 of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1962') provided that the candidate for direct recruitment to the posts specified in part A, B, and C of Schedule I shall possess such academic and Technical qualification and experience as laid down from time to time by the Rajasthan University. It has been submitted that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dated 21-12-2011 amended Rule 12 of the Rules of 1962 providing that the expression "Rajasthan University" would be substituted by "Rajasthan University of Health Sciences". It has been submitted that the academic and technical qualification for the posts specified in part A, B and C of Schedule I shall be laid down by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. It has been submitted the RUHS vide letter dated 29-11-2016 informed that the academic qualification for the post of Assistant Professor will be laid down subject to the notifications issued and amendments made by the Medical Council of India. It has been submitted that clause 6 of the Regulations 1998 was amended vide notification dated 8-6-2017, where under the minimum teaching and research experience required for the post of Assistant Professor was amended to three years of Junior Resident in a recognized medical college in the concerned subject and one year as Senior Resident in the concerned subject in a recognized medical college. Hence limiting tenure of Senior Residents, to begin with, for a period of one year extendable to three years following reassessment subsequent to fresh advertisement and applications by all desirous in pursuance thereof, does not in any manner take away the opportunity of a Senior Resident, such as the petitioners to be eligible for Assistant Professor. The affidavit filed by Hemant Kumar Gera, Secretary department of Medical Education of Government of Rajasthan in my considered view makes it pellucid that one year experience as Senior Resident suffices under the Rules of 1962 for consideration to the post of Assistant Professor in a Medical College in the State of Rajasthan. 11. In the context of aforesaid discussion, the circular dated 10-8-2018 is not vulnerable to a challenge on ground of its alleged arbitrariness or any other unconstitutionality. It reflects a well considered policy decision of the State Government. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners there from. There is no force in the petition. It is dismissed. 12. The connected petitions agitating the same issue are baseless and similarly dismissed. 13. A copy of this order be placed in each connected petition.