JUDGMENT : 1. Since common questions are involved in all the above-mentioned three writ petitions, they are being decided together. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) In the State of U.P. in various Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges, the number of qualified teachers selected through Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter be referred as 'UPPSC') were not available and, therefore, the State Government issued Government Order dated 28.05.2015 giving out that teachers of various categories be appointed on contract basis through a selection based on interview from amongst the teachers having retired from various Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges situated in the State of U.P. or outside the State of U.P. (ii) A selection for appointment on contract basis in accordance with the provisions contained under Government Order dated 28.05.2015 took place but the requisite hands for teaching in various Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges including the newly created Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges in various districts could not be made available. Therefore, in order to meet the requirement of teachers of various categories, such as, Lecturers or Readers or Professors, the State Government issued Government order dated 27.10.2017 modifying the earlier Government order dated 28.05.2015. The difference between the two government orders are that as per Government Order dated 28.05.2015 only teachers having retired from State Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges could be appointed whereas as per Government Order dated 27.10.2017 it was inter-alia provided that the teachers either serving or having retired from Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges located inside the State of U.P. or outside or retired or serving teachers of Private Homeopathic Medical Colleges located inside the State of U.P. or outside having requisite experience could also be appointed. (iii) In the Government Order dated 28.05.2015, it was provided that the appointment of the teachers retired from Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges could be made for a period of one year or till the availability of the candidates selected by the UPPSC whereas in the Government order dated 27.10.2017 it was provided that the teachers to be appointed, who could be either retired or serving teachers of Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges or from Private recognized Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges, could continue till the availability of the regularly selected candidate from UPPSC or till attaining the age of 65 years. (iv) In furtherance of the Government order dated 27.10.2017, an advertisement was issued on 15.12.2017 mentioning contractual appointment was to be made for the period till the availability of regularly selected candidate or till attaining the age of 65 years. It was further mentioned in the advertisement that the appointment was to be made for a period of one year or till the availability of the regularly selected candidate from the UPPSC or till attaining the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. (v) The petitioners submitted their candidature and they were subjected to selection process as prescribed under Government order dated 27.10.2017, and selected and appointed on their respective posts. (vi) On 26.03.2019 some deliberations through Video Conferencing took place under Chairmanship of Secretary, Department of AYUSH, U.P. with participation of Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officers, District Homeopathic Officers and Principals of Ayurvedic and Unani and Homeopathic Medical Colleges. The said video conferencing deliberations provided that contractual appointment of employees be made only for a period of 11 months and in no circumstance the employees shall be paid salary for twelve months. On the basis of the drawn up proceedings of the deliberations through video conferencing as held on 26.03.2019, the Director, Homeopathy, U.P., Lucknow issued a letter dated 29.03.2019 addressed to all Principals of Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges and Hospitals, U.P. and to all District Homeopathic Officers of the State of U.P. directing that the action be taken on the basis of the decision taken through the video conferencing dated 26.03.2019. (vii) The Director, Homeopathic, U.P./respondent no.2 issued a letter dated 20.06.2019 instructing all the Principals of Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges and Hospitals of U.P. to discharge the petitioners till execution of any fresh contract and in that furtherance of the same the petitioners were discharged on different dates after completing one year of service. (viii) Thereafter, the Director issued letter dated 06.07.2019 providing that in the public interest/governmental functioning interest, it was necessary and compulsive to continue to engage teachers on contract basis and the teachers already appointed be engaged on contract basis for a period of 11 months after creating a break of seven days. The names of all the petitioners find mention in the list attached to the letter dated 06.07.2019. The names of all the petitioners find mention in the list attached to the letter dated 06.07.2019. (ix) Respondent No.1 i.e. State Government issued two orders on 14.08.2020, in which, it has been stated that there are many complaints regarding renewal of tenureship on contractual basis pending before the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukt, Lucknow and, therefore, renewal of the tenure of the petitioners on contractual basis on various posts is not liable to be done. It is also contained in the said order that new process for selection on contractual basis for various specified posts may be initiated. Vide another order of the same day i.e. 14.08.2020, Government Order dated 11.04.2018 was cancelled. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging aforesaid orders dated 14.08.2020. 3. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that bare perusal of the impugned orders dated 14.08.2020 reveals that the foundation for passing the impugned orders is an inquiry report, which was submitted by Ms. V. Hekali Jhemomi, Secretary, Medical Department, U.P. Government. It is submitted that on the same matter earlier an inquiry was conducted by Shri R.N. Bajpai, Special Secretary, AYUSH Department, Government of U.P., who submitted his inquiry report before the Government but it appears from the perusal of the impugned orders that the inquiry report of Shri R.N. Bajpai has not been considered by respondent no.1 while passing the impugned orders. 4. It has further been submitted that findings given in the impugned orders dated 14.08.2020 are contrary to the documents on record because while issuing Government Order dated 11.04.2018, earlier Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 and 27.10.2017 were not superseded. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 14.08.2020, which has been passed on the inquiry report of Ms. V. Hekali Jhemomi, are perverse in nature and cannot be relied upon. 5. Dr. Mishra has submitted that in all the nine Homeopathic Medical Colleges where the appointments were done on contractual basis, posts were vacant since no regular incumbents were available due to non-selection by UPPSC. It has been submitted that the matter was referred to the State Government by referring the provisions of Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 and 27.10.2017. Thereafter, State Government directed respondent no.2 to hold selection by adopting the procedure as prescribed in the aforesaid Government Orders. 6. Dr. It has been submitted that the matter was referred to the State Government by referring the provisions of Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 and 27.10.2017. Thereafter, State Government directed respondent no.2 to hold selection by adopting the procedure as prescribed in the aforesaid Government Orders. 6. Dr. Mishra has submitted that the aforesaid decision for appointment of teachers on contractual basis in Homeopathic Medical Colleges were taken by State Government in peculiar and special circumstances since the working in almost all Homeopathic Medical Colleges in the State of U.P. were paralysed due to absence of regular teachers and, therefore, there is no fault on the part of the petitioners. Apart from this, before issuing Government Order dated 11.04.2018, all the Government Orders, issued earlier, were considered and only thereafter, a conscious decision was taken and Government Order dated 11.04.2018 was issued. 7. Dr. Mishra has submitted that the respondents are trying to appoint other contractual employees of their own choice on different posts in place of the petitioners by ousting them. It is settled law that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees and, therefore, the action of the respondents to appoint other contractual employees in place of the petitioners is against the settled law. 8. It has been submitted that action of the respondents in extending/renewing the tenure of contractual employees in the Nine State run Homeopathic Colleges in Uttar Pradesh on the basis of pick and choose, and denying the same benefit to the petitioners despite their eligibility and entitlement as per provisions of Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 & 27.10.2017 as well as the terms and conditions of their respective appointment orders, is not only illegal, arbitrary and malafide but discriminatory as well as contrary to Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. 9. Dr. Mishra has submitted that term of contractual appointments of all the petitioners are required to be renewed/extended for further twelve months because till date, regularly selected candidates from UPPSC are not available. It has been submitted that no irregularity has been found against the contractual appointments of the petitioners and thus, refusal of renewal/extension of their contractual period is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that no irregularity has been found against the contractual appointments of the petitioners and thus, refusal of renewal/extension of their contractual period is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that there is also a legitimate expectation of the petitioners that their tenure for contractual employment may be renewed/extended from time to time and they may be allowed to perform their duties till regularly selected candidates are available from UPPSC or till they attain the age of 65 years. Dr. Mishra has vehemently submitted that due to illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents, Fundamental Right of the petitioners as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been curtailed. 10. It has been submitted that instead of allowing the petitioners to continue to work and function as Lecturers or Readers or Professors in Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges in the State of U.P. till they attain the age of 65 years or till a regularly selected candidate is made available by the UPPSC, the State Government has issued the impugned Order dated 14.08.2020 and has written a letter dated 14.08.2020 addressed to the Director, Homeopathic, U.P., Lucknow. 11. It has been submitted that the impugned letter/order dated 14.08.2020 is not referable to Article 162 and 166 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the same apart from being illegal and arbitrary is also without jurisdiction and has also been passed prior to passing of the Government Order dated 14.08.2020 by means of which Government Order dated 11.04.2018 has been cancelled. It has been submitted that the impugned Government Order dated 14.08.2020 by means of which Government Order dated 11.04.2018 has been cancelled cannot at all be given retrospective effect so as to disturb the already concluded selection process followed by issuance of appointment letters, and the same is to be followed prospectively. 12. Dr. It has been submitted that the impugned Government Order dated 14.08.2020 by means of which Government Order dated 11.04.2018 has been cancelled cannot at all be given retrospective effect so as to disturb the already concluded selection process followed by issuance of appointment letters, and the same is to be followed prospectively. 12. Dr. Mishra, learned counsel, has submitted that the ground while passing impugned order/letter dated 14.08.2020 to the effect that still the State Government is receiving many complaints in regard to selection and appointment of teachers on contract basis in Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges in the State of U.P., is illegal and arbitrary and could not have been a ground, inasmuch as, in every selection several complaints are made by un-selected candidates and merely because complaints are made or received cannot mean that the selection and appointment was not valid or was illegal. The impugned exercise has been undertaken without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. The petitioners cannot at all be made to suffer on the ground as to whether a policy decision has been taken by the Cabinet or not or a particular Government Order has been issued after taking approval from the Cabinet or not. The petitioners being bonafinde candidates and being fully eligible submitted their candidature pursuant to the advertisement and were selected and appointed either as Lecturers or Readers or Professors in Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges in the State of U.P. on the basis of their merits. 13. It is submitted that the service record of the petitioners are unblemished. All the petitioners have rendered satisfactory service and there has been no dissatisfaction on the part of their superiors nor is there any complaint against their functioning. On a general complaint, the inquiry was initiated but the petitioners have not been made party by way of issuing show cause or inviting any explanation on the complaint and also it is not disclosed by the respondent vide the impugned order that the complaint received against which petitioner and whether service of any petitioner was unsatisfactory or appointment of any petitioner is contrary to any Government Order. It has been submitted that if any complaint is received regarding illegal appointment then the department/respondent might examine each case individually and pass appropriate order against each petitioner separately but discontinuing the service of the petitioners by passing a general impugned order is contrary to the earlier Government Order dated 28.05.2015 and 27.10.2017 and the advertisement dated 15.12.2017. 14. It is submitted that the petitioners have got a legal right to continue till the availability of the regularly selected candidates through UPPSC or till attaining the age of 65 years and the respondents have corresponding legal obligation to allow the petitioners to continue till availability of the regularly selected candidates from UPPSC or till attaining the age of 65 years by the petitioners by adhering to the terms of Government Order dated 27.10.2017. 15. Per Contra, Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions of petitioner's counsel and submitted that the advertisement was issued as per the provisions/conditions contained in Government Order dated 27.10.2017 for filling up the posts of teachers in 09 Government Homeopathic Colleges on contractual basis. In the year 2018, the vacant posts of teachers were filled up through departmental selection committee on the basis of interview on contractual basis, whose term had already completed in the year 2019 and thereafter, their contracts were renewed for 11 months. 16. It has been submitted that on the aforesaid contractual appointments, a complaint was filed before Hon'ble Lokayukt, U.P., who vide letter dated 02.09.2019, directed the State Government to conduct an inquiry in respect of irregularities committed in the contractual appointments of teachers in Government Homeopathic Medical College. In pursuance of the direction, Ms. V. Hekali Jhemomi, Secretary, Department of Medical and Health, Government of U.P. was appointed as inquiry officer who conducted inquiry and submitted a report stating therein that the appointments were made on contractual basis in the Homeopathy Medical Colleges vide Government Order dated 11.04.2018. It was further mentioned in the inquiry report that Government Order dated 11.04.2018 was not approved by Hon'ble Council of Ministers, whereas earlier Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 and 27.10.2017 were issued with the approval of Hon'ble Council of Ministers, Government of U.P., as such contractual appointments made on the basis of Government Order dated 11.04.2018 are not legally sustainable. It was further mentioned in the inquiry report that Government Order dated 11.04.2018 was not approved by Hon'ble Council of Ministers, whereas earlier Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 and 27.10.2017 were issued with the approval of Hon'ble Council of Ministers, Government of U.P., as such contractual appointments made on the basis of Government Order dated 11.04.2018 are not legally sustainable. It has been submitted that the inquiry officer made recommendation for termination of the contractual appointment of the teachers and therefore, the contractual term of the petitioners have not been renewed further. 17. It is further submitted that several complaints were received in respect of the aforementioned appointments and the matter is still being before the Hon'ble Lokayukt. The State Government vide order/letter dated 14.08.2020 cancelled the appointment of contractual teachers and vide office memorandum dated 14.08.2020, the decision for not renewing the term of aforementioned contractual appointments was taken. It was also decided that fresh selection process for contractual appointments in terms of Government Order dated 28.05.2015 be carried out. 18. It is submitted that the petitioners have twisted the facts mentioned in the Government Order dated 27.10.2017 just to mislead this Hon'ble Court, whereas the correct facts are mentioned in the Para-4 (Aa) (2) of the afore-mentioned Government Order which reads as under:- ^^izns'k ,oa izns'k ds ckgj ekU;rk izkIr futh gksE;ksiSfFkd esfMdy dkystksa ,oa fpfdRlky;ksa ds lsokjr ;k lsokfuo`Ÿk ,sls f'k{kdksa ftuds }kjk lsokdky esa de ls de 10 o"kZ dk f'k{k.k dk;Z vfuok;Z :i ls lEikfnr fd;k x;k gks] dks jktdh; gksE;ksiSfFkd esfMdy dkystksa esa izksQslj@jhMj@izoDrkvksa ds fjDr inksa ds lkis{k lafonk ds vk/kkj ij j[kk tk;sA ,sls f'k{kdksa dks mudh 65 o"kZ dh vk;q rd vFkok yksd lsok vk;ksx ls vH;FkhZ miyC/k gksus rd gh j[ks tkus dk izkfo/kku fd;k tk;s^^ 19. Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the above it is crystal clear that the appointments were to be made on contractual basis and the term of contract of employee is only up to 65 years of age or till availability of selected candidates from Public Service Commission. It is submitted that these contractual appointments do not fall within the regular appointments, therefore, these appointments were made on the basis of contract only for 11 months and after completion of aforementioned term, as per the decision taken by the Government, the contract of the petitioners were not renewed. 20. It is submitted that these contractual appointments do not fall within the regular appointments, therefore, these appointments were made on the basis of contract only for 11 months and after completion of aforementioned term, as per the decision taken by the Government, the contract of the petitioners were not renewed. 20. It is further submitted that Ms. V. Hekali Jhemomi, Secretary, Department of Medical Health, Government of U.P. conducted an inquiry and submitted report wherein it has been mentioned that Government Order dated 11.04.2018 pursuant to which appointment of contractual teacher were made in the year 2018, was not issued after approval of Hon'ble Council of Ministers whereas the earlier Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 and 27.10.2017 were issued after approval of Hon'ble Council of Ministers. Therefore, it is evident that the appointment of contractual teachers made pursuant to Government Order dated 11.04.2018 are not in accordance with law as such recommendation has been made for cancellation of the aforesaid appointments. 21. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis and they were not appointed through UPPSC. Several complaints were received in respect of selection process of the aforementioned appointments and the same was inquired into as per the orders of Hon'ble Lokayukt and it was found that the aforesaid appointments were not in accordance with law, therefore, the appointments were cancelled and fresh selection process has been initiated. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned orders. The instant writ petition is devoid of merit and be dismissed as such. 22. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 23. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I have also perused Government Orders dated 28.05.2015, 27.10.2017 & 11.04.2018 and appointment letters of the petitioners as also Advertisement No.2/2020-21 dated 24.11.2020. 24. Vide order dated 04.09.2020 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Additional Chief Secretary, AYUSH was directed to file his personal affidavit. In pursuance to the said order, an affidavit has been filed on 29.09.2020. I have also perused Government Orders dated 28.05.2015, 27.10.2017 & 11.04.2018 and appointment letters of the petitioners as also Advertisement No.2/2020-21 dated 24.11.2020. 24. Vide order dated 04.09.2020 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Additional Chief Secretary, AYUSH was directed to file his personal affidavit. In pursuance to the said order, an affidavit has been filed on 29.09.2020. In Paras -12 & 13 of the said affidavit it is contended that State Government vide Government Order dated 14.08.2020 has decided to make fresh contractual appointments of teachers as per provisions of Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 and 27.10.2015 and if the petitioners are eligible for the concerned post, they may also submit their application form as per law and may participate in the fresh selection process. 25. Bare perusal of Advertisement No.2/2020-21 dated 24.11.2020 (Annexure RA-1 with Rejoinder Affidavit) reveals that reservation has been applied by clubbing all the vacant posts of Lecturers (subject-wise) available in all the Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges so that adequate reservation is provided and the same procedure was also followed in the case in hand in terms of Government Order dated 11.04.2018. Since the procedure prescribed in Government Order dated 11.04.2018 is to be followed in the latest selection process, as per the advertisement dated 24.11.2020, therefore, it cannot be said that selection and appointment of the petitioners either as Professors or Readers or Lecturers in terms of Government Order dated 11.04.2018 was bad in the eyes of law. 26. It is not the case of the State that the petitioners are not having requisite qualifications for their respective posts. It is also not the case of the State that the appointments of the petitioners were contrary to the provisions of any statute as well as advertisement dated 15.12.2017. It is also not the case of the State that there is any complaint regarding performance of the petitioners as Lecturers, Readers or Professors in their respective colleges. It is also not the case of the State that the appointments of the petitioners were contrary to the provisions of any statute as well as advertisement dated 15.12.2017. It is also not the case of the State that there is any complaint regarding performance of the petitioners as Lecturers, Readers or Professors in their respective colleges. It is only argued by the State that some complaints were received by the Department regarding irregularities in appointment of the few of the candidates who have been appointed in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement in the year 2017 and it is also the case of the State that the appointments of the petitioners were made on contractual basis in the Homeopathic Medical Colleges vide Government Order dated 11.04.2018 which is not approved by Hon'ble Council of Ministers whereas earlier Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 and 27.10.2017 were issued with the approval of Hon'ble Council of Ministers of Government of U.P. Therefore, contract appointments made on the basis of Government Order dated 11.04.2018 are not legally sustainable. 27. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the authorities concerned have taken a decision for cancelling contractual appointment of the petitioners without initiating a proper individual inquiry against each candidate and also not given them opportunity to represent their case on the said complaint. If any irregularity has been committed in the selection and appointment of the petitioners on contractual basis, then the law is already settled that the illegality may be examined by the process of due legal inquiry and the persons concerned may be denied renewal of further term of the contractual employment, if the allegation of irregularity in selection process is found proved. However, in the present case, no inquiry has been initiated to find out irregularity and arbitrariness in appointment of individual contractual employees. 28. In the case in hand, individual cases were not examined by the authorities concerned but in one stroke, by a general order, all contractual appointments have been cancelled. The department has initiated process for filling the said vacancy vide advertisement dated 24.11.2020 on contractual basis. It is settled law that one set of contractual employee should not be replaced by another set of contractual employees unless it is found by the authorities that the persons working on contractual basis are not working satisfactory. The contractual employees can only be replaced by regularly selected persons. It is settled law that one set of contractual employee should not be replaced by another set of contractual employees unless it is found by the authorities that the persons working on contractual basis are not working satisfactory. The contractual employees can only be replaced by regularly selected persons. The petitioners herein were appointed for a specified period as Lecturers, Readers and Professors in their respective Homeopathic Colleges as per terms of Advertisement dated 15.12.2017 as also Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 and 27.10.2017. 29. The services of all the petitioners have been cancelled and a decision for no further renewal of any contractual employee in Homeopathic Colleges has been taken. It is clear law that eligibility of any candidate is to be reckoned not from his or her selection but in terms of rules or advertisement for the respective post. It is also settled law that authority publishing the advertisement/notification or any Government Order represents to the members of the public that it is bound by such representation. Therefore, the State cannot take away employment of the petitioners who are not responsible for any irregularities in the appointment without proper inquiry of each appointment individually or appraisal of performance of every employee individually. Any complaint regarding an appointment should be examined and the decision be taken individually and not by a general order. Not approval of any Government Order by Cabinet, cannot said to be a wrong committed by the employee and therefore, the petitioners cannot suffer for any irregularities which have been committed by government authorities. The appointment of the petitioners was made after adopting the procedure prescribed in the statute as well as the advertisement dated 15.12.2017 and if the appointment is cancelled by a general order, without appointing teachers on regular basis by UPPSC, then the students who are studying in the said Homeopathic Colleges may also suffer irreparably. 30. In the instant case, the petitioners have been appointed on contractual basis on their respective posts after completion of due process. If any irregularity has been committed in the selection and appointment of the petitioners, then the said irregularity may be detected by the process of due legal inquiry. There is also a legitimate expectation of the petitioners who have been appointed on contractual basis in different colleges on their respective posts after following due process. 31. If any irregularity has been committed in the selection and appointment of the petitioners, then the said irregularity may be detected by the process of due legal inquiry. There is also a legitimate expectation of the petitioners who have been appointed on contractual basis in different colleges on their respective posts after following due process. 31. Legitimate Expectation: one amongst several tools incorporated by the Court to review administrative action. A person may have a reasonable or legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by the administrative authorities owing to some consistent practice in the past or an express promise made by the concerned authority. 32. In, Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India - (1992) 4 SCC 477 , the new criteria for allotment of land was challenged. In the original policy, the seniority with regards to allotment was decided on the basis of date of registration. Subsequently, a change in policy was made in 1990, changing the criteria for deciding seniority based on the date of approval of the final list. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society's case (supra) held that the Housing Societies were entitled to ‘legitimate expectation’ owing to the continuous and consistent practice in the past in matters of allotment. The Court further elucidated on the principle stating that presence of ‘legitimate expectations’ can have different outcomes and one such outcome is that the authority should not fail ‘legitimate expectation’ unless there is some justifiable public policy reason for the same. It is further emphasized that availability of reasonable opportunity to those likely being affected by the change in a policy which was consistent in nature is well within the ambit of acting fairly. The Hon'ble Court held that such an opportunity should have been given to the Housing Societies by way of a public notice. 33. In view of the foregoing discussion, all the above-mentioned three petitions are allowed. Impugned Order No.2188/96-AYUSH-2-2020-10/2015 T.C.-I dated 14.08.2020 and Order/Letter No.1561/96-AYUSH-2-2020-10/2015 T.C.-I dated 14.08.2020 are hereby quashed. The petitioners are allowed to work on their respective posts in their respective colleges as per Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 & 27.10.2017. However, in case, any complaint is made/receipt, the State shall be at liberty to examine/inquire the said complaint in respect of each candidate as per law and pass order on each case separately. The petitioners are allowed to work on their respective posts in their respective colleges as per Government Orders dated 28.05.2015 & 27.10.2017. However, in case, any complaint is made/receipt, the State shall be at liberty to examine/inquire the said complaint in respect of each candidate as per law and pass order on each case separately. The State or the respondent/authorities shall also be at liberty to examine performance of each petitioner on their respective posts before renewing their services after expiry of their contract period and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.