JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. I.A. No. 1914 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 12 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1914 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 12 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 618 of 2018 The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 16.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4676 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 04.08.2016, by which, the engagement of the writ petitioners as Data Entry Operator has been discontinued on the ground that they were paid honorarium under 13th Finance Commission. 2. The brief facts of the case are required to be referred herein which reads as hereunder:- That under the 13th Finance Commission, the Government of India has taken a decision to connect all the villages with computer and internet and accordingly it was decided to collect the data and feed the same in the computer pertaining to various aspects relating to rural areas and for which, the information are required to be entered under the 11 applications so that the same can be accessed by any individual as required. The State of Jharkhand, in pursuance to the aforesaid decision of the Central Government has issued a letter bearing letter no. 708 dated 11.03.2014, wherein a specific direction has been issued to all the Deputy Commissioners and the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad to take appropriate action for appointment of dedicated Computer Operator in their districts on contractual basis as Data Entry Operator for entry of data under 11 applications as the fund will be released only after start of the work. The Directorate of Panchayti Raj, State of Jharkhand, in compliance to the aforesaid policy decision has issued a letter bearing letter no. The Directorate of Panchayti Raj, State of Jharkhand, in compliance to the aforesaid policy decision has issued a letter bearing letter no. 1199 dated 22.04.2014, wherein the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officers of all the Zila Parishads were directed to take appropriate steps for creation of computer cell and also for appointment of Data Entry Operator, in pursuant thereto, an advertisement was issued on 09.06.2014 inviting application from eligible candidates for consideration of their candidature for their engagement as Data Entry Operator on contract basis. The authorities have also constituted a Selection Committee before whom the application receipts of the various candidates have been placed and on the basis of the comparative assessment of merit of one or the other candidates, a merit list was prepared and altogether 45 candidates have been selected, out of which 31 candidates have been appointed against the vacancy created for appointment on contractual basis and the candidates from serial no. 32 to 45 were kept in waiting. The writ petitioners being found to be successful have been issued with their appointment letters, in pursuant thereto, they have started discharging their duties. It is the grievance of the writ petitioners that while they were discharging their duties, the period of 13th Finance Commission has expired, in consequence thereof, the 14th Finance Commission has been launched, in which also the direction was issued to take appropriate steps for appointment of Data Entry Operator by fulfilling the 63 posts for the district of Garhwa. According to the writ petitioners, they have agitated their grievance before the competent authority that since they are discharging their duties as Data Entry Operator in pursuant to the appointment made under 13th Finance Commission considering their experience, they may be allowed to continue even in course of operation of the period of 14th Finance Commission but the authorities have come out with an advertisement to fill up the 63 posts as under 14th Finance Commission for appointment of Data Entry Operator. The writ petitioners have approached to this Court by filing the writ petition challenging the said very action of the respondent authorities, whereby and whereunder, fresh advertisements have been issued for appointment of Data Entry Operator inter-alia on the ground that since the writ petitioners have already performed their duties, therefore, considering their experience, they may be allowed to discharge their duties even under the period of 14th Finance Commission. According to the writ petitioners, the action of the respondent authorities in changing one set of ad-hoc employees from the other set of ad-hoc employees has been deprecated even by the Hon’ble Apex Court and to fortify their submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 292 but the learned Single Judge has refused to pass any positive direction in favour of the writ petitioners on the ground that since the writ petitioners have been appointed on contractual basis under the tenure of 13th Finance Commission which contains a eligibility criteria as per the advertisement which is lesser in comparison to that of advertisement issued for filling up the posts of Data Entry Operator during the course of 14th Finance Commission and further on the ground that since the writ petitioners have been appointed purely on contract basis, they have got no legal vested right to seek direction from this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India to allow them to continue in service, the aforesaid order is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-writ petitioners have reiterated the ground which was agitated by them before the learned Single Judge and harping upon the principle that one set of contractual appointment cannot be replaced by another set of contractual appointment and to fortify his submission, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (supra). His main contention is that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the applicability of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (supra) and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, learned GA-II appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the ground and submission agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants by defending the impugned order. 4. Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, learned GA-II appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the ground and submission agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants by defending the impugned order. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand that the judgment rendered in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (supra), is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that the said judgment speaks about the appointment made which is ad-hoc in nature but herein the nature of appointment is not ad-hoc, rather it is contractual and when there is a contractual appointment, the same will depend upon the terms and conditions of offer of appointment and the day when the period of contract will expire, the employees engaged under the said contract will have got no right to claim for continuity in service. It has further been submitted that the writ petitioners are having lesser eligibility criteria in comparison to that of eligibility criteria which has been fixed for filling up the posts in course of operation of 14th Finance Commission and as such, the writ petitioners have not made their applications for consideration of their candidature in pursuant to the fresh advertisement and once they are lacking with the eligibility criteria which is required in pursuance to the fresh advertisement, they cannot claim that they may be allowed to continue in service even in course of operation of 14th Finance Commission. It has further been submitted that if the writ petitioners would be allowed to continue in service even having with lesser qualification as has been provided under the fresh advertisement issued in course of operation of 14th Finance Commission, the same will not be proper, rather the same will lead to engaging the person having lesser qualification and therefore, the learned Single Judge has considered all these aspects of the matter and hence declined to interfere with the decision taken by the authority concerned vide impugned order dated 16.08.2018. 5. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions as also after going across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, we find from the material available on record some admitted fact which is required to be referred herein and reads as hereunder:- The writ petitioners were appointed on contract basis pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.06.2014 issued for appointment of Data Entry Operator on contract basis in course of operation of 13th Finance Commission as contained under annexure-3 to the paper book specifying the minimum educational qualification to be Intermediate with one year Diploma in computer course with the other conditions for giving preference to such candidates who are having one year Diploma course in computer with Graduate/Science Graduate or Graduate with Computer Science/B.C.A. decree holders. It was also been specified therein that the appointment was purely to be made on contract basis. The writ petitioners filed their applications. After comparative assessment of merit of one or the other candidates, they were selected by keeping them in the merit list of 45 candidates. However, since 31 posts were available, 31 candidates were appointed as would appear from annexure-6 annexed to the paper book. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioners started discharging their duties. After complexion of the period of 13th Finance Commission and upon coming into effect of the period of 14th Finance Commission, further decision was taken to appoint Data Entry Operator, for which, an advertisement was issued being Advertisement No. 01/2016-17 as would appear from annexure-12 to the paper-book. It is evident therefrom that the minimum qualification i.e., intermediate which was the basis of selection in course of 13th Finance Commission, has been changed to that of Graduation under 14th Finance Commission. The writ petitioners ventilated their grievance before the competent authority for their continuation in service taking into consideration their experience which they have got by discharging their duties in course of operation of 13th Finance Commission but having not been given heed to, they preferred writ petition raising the aforesaid grievance but the learned Single Judge has refused to pass any positive direction in their favour. In the light of the aforesaid admitted fact, the argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is mainly the ground that one ad-hoc arrangement is not proper to be replaced by another ad-hoc arrangement. In the light of the aforesaid admitted fact, the argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is mainly the ground that one ad-hoc arrangement is not proper to be replaced by another ad-hoc arrangement. In order to buttress the said submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (supra). This Court thought it proper to first take into consideration the applicability of the aforesaid judgment in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is evident from the fact leading to the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (supra) that the appellants in that case were employed on ad-hoc basis in several colleges in the State of Punjab and on a threat of termination of their services, they had filed writ petitions before the High Court seeking the relief of regularization, minimum pay scale and continuance on their respective posts until regular appointments are made. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the aforesaid factual aspect was pleased to hold by deprecating the stand of the High Court in refusing to interfere on the issue, as the impugned decision of the State was to displace one ad-hoc arrangement by another, that the action to replace one ad-hoc arrangement with another arrangement would not be proper. The writ petitioners who having gained much experience, would be more beneficial and useful for the establishment rather than the new entrants. Accordingly, the order passed by the High Court was set aside to the extent the same denied the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. However, here the admitted fact is that the nature of appointment was on contract. The issue with respect to the contractual appointment is no longer res-integra. There is difference in between the employment on ad-hoc basis and contractual basis. Since the contractual appointment depends upon the terms and conditions of the advertisement vis-à-vis the offer of appointment making the appointment for a fixed period, whereas the nature of appointment on ad-hoc basis is completely on different line. There is difference in between the employment on ad-hoc basis and contractual basis. Since the contractual appointment depends upon the terms and conditions of the advertisement vis-à-vis the offer of appointment making the appointment for a fixed period, whereas the nature of appointment on ad-hoc basis is completely on different line. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (supra) has set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana deprecating the displacement of one ad-hoc arrangement by another ad-hoc arrangement but the said principle is not applicable in the case in hand in which the nature of appointment was contractual one for a specific period. Further, the appointment made on contract basis under a Scheme depends upon the terms and conditions of the contract which will amounts to a bi-lateral contract and if any condition about the tenure has been given, the same binds the parties and there cannot be any deviation from the terms and conditions of the contract and furthermore the party would have no legal vested right to insist upon the other party to change the terms and conditions of the contract. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since admittedly in course of operation of 13th Finance Commission, the minimum educational qualification required for consideration of appointment of Data Entry Operator on contract basis was Intermediate and the appointment, since was made only for the period of operation of 13th Finance Commission, the day when the period of 13th Finance Commission expired and the period of 14th Finance Commission begun, the decision was required to be taken by the competent authority in terms of requirement of 14th Finance Commission to achieve the intent and object of the Commission. It is further undisputed fact that in course of operation of 14th Finance Commission, 63 posts were required to be filled up of Data Entry Operator on contract basis and this time, the decision was taken by the authority to raise the minimum educational qualification for consideration of candidature from Intermediate to Graduation. 6. In that view of the matter also the writ petitioners cannot claim continuation in their services even in course of operation of 14th Finance Commission, since they will have lesser minimum educational qualification as required in pursuant to the advertisement issued in course of operation of 14th Finance Commission. 6. In that view of the matter also the writ petitioners cannot claim continuation in their services even in course of operation of 14th Finance Commission, since they will have lesser minimum educational qualification as required in pursuant to the advertisement issued in course of operation of 14th Finance Commission. 7. It is settled position of Law that the candidature of candidates cannot be considered if the candidates are not possessing the minimum educational qualification in terms of the condition stipulated in the advertisement and therefore, the ground which has been agitated by the learned counsel for the appellants for their continuation in service even in course of operation of 14th Finance Commission, cannot be said to be justified one. Learned Single Judge has considered these aspects of the matter and it is one of the reason for denying the positive direction in favour of the writ petitioners. The second reason has been assigned by the learned Single Judge that since they are not possessing requisite educational qualification as prescribed in the advertisement and in consequence thereof, they did not participated in the fresh process of selection and as such, they have got no right to claim their continuation in service under the changed circumstance. 8. We, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. 9. In the result, the instant appeal fails and accordingly, is dismissed. 10. In consequent to disposal of this appeal, I.A. No. 1915 of 2019 and I.A. No. 1916 of 2019 also stand disposed of.