JUDGMENT : MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.12.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur whereby the OA No. 291/429/2018 preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners were engaged by the respondent-Employees State Insurance Corporation (for brevity- ‘ESIC’) as IT Managers and IT Assistants in the year 2016 on contract basis initially for a period of one year which was extended for further one year and lastly for three months, i.e., upto 31.8.2018. Vide its decision dated 10.08.2018, the respondents decided to engage IT Managers and IT Assistants on contract basis in future through National Informatics Centres Services of India (for short-‘the NICSI’), a Government of India Enterprises, empanelled agencies. For the Rajasthan region, SISL Infotech Pvt. Ltd. was chosen as such agency. Assailing this decision, the petitioners filed the aforesaid OA with further prayer to direct the respondents to continue them in service till the regular appointments are made. The OA came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide its order impugned herein. 3. Assailing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that impugned order is in violation of the principle of law that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees. He submitted that the respondents cannot engage services of IT Managers and IT Assistants afresh on contract basis and the petitioners are entitled to continue as such till regularly selected candidates join. He, therefore, prayed for quashing the order dated 2.12.2020. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order submitted that they have taken a conscious policy decision to engage IT Managers and IT Assistants through NICSI throughout its Offices and Hospitals PAN India. He further submitted that many of the petitioners are already working with the respondents under the new system i.e. after their engagement through empanelled agency. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 6. Indisputedly, the services of the petitioners were hired on contractual basis initially for a period of one year which was extended for another year and lastly for a period of three months i.e. upto 31.8.2018 and their term of contract has come to an end by efflux of time. 6. Indisputedly, the services of the petitioners were hired on contractual basis initially for a period of one year which was extended for another year and lastly for a period of three months i.e. upto 31.8.2018 and their term of contract has come to an end by efflux of time. It is trite law that a person engaged purely on contractual basis for a fixed term has no right to claim continuation after the period of contract has come to an end. Further, the respondents have taken a policy decision to engage in future the services of IT Managers and IT Assistants for its offices and hospitals throughout India through the IT Manpower supplying agencies empanelled by the NICSI, a Government of India undertaking which does not suffer from any arbitrariness so as to warrant interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. Moreover, many of the petitioners are already working with the respondents through empanelled agency, an assertion not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. In so far contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that they are entitlted to continue as contractual employees till the regularly selected candidates join is concerned, admittedly the posts of IT Managers and IT Assistants are not encadred and hence, there is no occasion to have regular employees on these posts. A Division Bench of this Court has, in the case of SBI v. Ashish Kumar, DB Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1063 of 2018, decided on 28-11-2018 (Raj), held as under: “33. The learned Single Judge has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the respondents contractual employees, could be replaced only by regularly selected employees inasmuch as, admittedly, the posts of BCs were never the cadred posts either in SBBJ or in SBI and therefore, the question of filling of such posts by way of regular selection, does not arise. 34. Further, the term of the respondents' engagement as individual BCs having come to an end, this court can neither direct the respondents to extend the term of the contract nor such contract for service could be directed to be enforced by this court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 34. Further, the term of the respondents' engagement as individual BCs having come to an end, this court can neither direct the respondents to extend the term of the contract nor such contract for service could be directed to be enforced by this court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is open for the respondents to accept or not to accept their engagement through National BCs or sue the respondents by availing appropriate remedy available under the law for breach of the contract, if any xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.” 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order dated 2.12.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal which does not suffer from any perversity or patent illegality warranting interference by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction. 9. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed devoid of merit.