JUDGMENT : VIKRAM NATH, J. 1 By means of these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, both the appellants have prayed for setting aside order passed by learned Single Judge dated 08.10.2020 and to further quash and set aside the termination/relieving order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the respondent University i.e. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University (hereinafter referred to as “the University”). 2. The present appellants were appointed on contractual basis for a period of 11 months on non-teaching post on completely ad hoc/temporary basis against an advertisement dated 31.08.2016. They were appointed as Assistants vide orders dated 06.06.2017 and 03.07.2017 for a fixed salary of Rs.12,000/- on ad hoc/temporary basis for the period of contract. Thereafter on 25.05.2018 they were given a further appointment for a fixed period against fixed salary of Rs.13,200/-. 3. The competent body of the University in its meeting held on 09.10.2019 and 24.10.2019 took a decision to fill up the ad hoc/temporary contractual non-teaching posts through outsourcing. This would result into discontinuance of the appellants. Further in continuation of the earlier meetings, the competent body of the University on 10.12.2019 is said to have taken decision to discontinue the appellants and other contractual employees. It is further stated that the Board of Management of the University vide resolutions dated 18.01.2020 and 24.01.2020 resolved to approve the earlier decisions of the Committee of the University dated 09.10.2019 and 10.12.2019. It is further case of the appellants that the University gave further appointment to the appellants vide letter dated 17.02.2020 for a fixed salary of Rs.13,200/-. 4. The appellants approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application Nos. 6981 and 6526 of 2020 challenging the decision of the Committee of the University and Board of Management dated 24.10.2019 and all subsequent decisions. After exchange of affidavits, learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 08.10.2020 dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.10.2020 the present appeals have been filed. 5. During the pendency of the appeals, the University issued an advertisement inviting e-tenders for engaging an outsourcing agency to provide non-teaching staff on temporary/contractual basis for the post of Assistant, Data Entry Operator, Clark cum Sahayak cum Computer Typist, etc. through outsourcing. Challenging the said advertisement dated 01.12.2020, the appellants preferred Civil Application No.1 of 2021 in both the appeals. 6. through outsourcing. Challenging the said advertisement dated 01.12.2020, the appellants preferred Civil Application No.1 of 2021 in both the appeals. 6. During the hearing of the Civil Applications, the learned counsels for the parties agreed that the main Letters Patent Appeals may be heard and decided rather than deciding the Civil Applications alone. Thus, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, we have heard the appeals. Learned counsels for the parties were given opportunity to provide their written briefs which also they have provided and we have perused the same. 7. We have heard Mr. I.H.Syed, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Meet Shah, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the University in both the appeals. 8. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the following findings: [1] The writ petitioners – appellants were engaged on contractual basis as was clearly evident from the above judgment. [2] The appellants having accepted such employment cannot claim as a matter of right that they were appointed against a post. [3] The arguments of the petitioners that they had earlier worked from 2008 to 2017 and as such they had a right to be continued in employment had no legs to stand as the subsequent appointment w.e.f. 2017 was against an advertisement and would thus be as per the terms of the contract. [4] There were disputed questions of facts as would be evident from the pleadings on record and as such the same could be examined only by a competent forum and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. [5] The learned Single Judge however observed that the respondent University may consider the case of reengaging the petitioners, if it is ultimately found suitable for the University in the event their engagements are replaced by outsourcing agency. With the above observations, both the writ petitions were dismissed. 9. Mr. Syed, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has raised several grounds in these appeals and placed reliance upon number of judgments. 9.1 It is submitted by Mr. Syed that ad hoc/ temporary/contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad hoc/temporary/contractual employees and such replacement can be only made by way of regularly selected candidates. In support his submission Mr. Syed has relied upon the following judgments: [i] State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors. 9.1 It is submitted by Mr. Syed that ad hoc/ temporary/contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad hoc/temporary/contractual employees and such replacement can be only made by way of regularly selected candidates. In support his submission Mr. Syed has relied upon the following judgments: [i] State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors. Reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 . [ii] Kanubhai Karshanbhai Bhava vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [order dated 23.09.2015 rendered in Special Civil Application No.8588 of 2015 and allied matters]. [ii] Navinbhai Dhirajbhai Kambli & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat [judgment dated 02.09.2014 in Special Civil Application No.2155 of 2013]. [iii] Gujarat Pollution Control Board vs. Navinbhai Dhirajbhai Kambli [judgment dated 11.03.2015 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1203 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No.2155 of 2013]. [iv] Ruchi Sanatkumar Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [order dated 03.02.2020 in Special Civil Application No.5965 of 2017 and allied matters]. [v] Prajapati Hitesh Mohanlal & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [judgment dated 01.07.2016 in Special Civil Application No.13621 of 2014 and allied matters]. [vi] State of Gujarat vs. Prajapati Hitesh Mohanlal [order dated 24.04.2018 in Letters Patent Appeal No.983 of 2017]. [vii] Narinder Singh Ahujna & Ors. vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors. [order dated 03.11.2014 in W.P.(C) 1741/2014, C.M. No.3645/2014]. [viii] Pradeep Navinbhai Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat [judgment dated 31.01.2014 in Special Civil Application No.13200 of 2013]. [ix] State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Jain Sumit Rajeshbhai & Ors. [judgment dated 18.02.2015 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1046 of 2014 and allied matters]. 9.2 It is next submitted by Mr. Syed that there are vacancies existing in the University, but despite the same they have discontinued the appellants. The stand of the University that the services of the appellants are not required where they were earlier working is misleading and fallacious. 9.3 Further submission on behalf of the appellants is that persons junior to the appellants, who have been engaged on non-teaching posts similar to that of the appellants although on contract basis and much after engagement of the appellants are being continued and as such the action of the University is arbitrary and illegal. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Om Prakash Goel vs. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Shimla & Anr. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Om Prakash Goel vs. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Shimla & Anr. Reported in (1991) 3 SCC 291 . 9.4 It is next submitted that the action of the University in discontinuing the present appellants is malafide and is actually exploitation. The University is deliberately not appointing regular staff and continuing with contractual employees and exploiting them time and again for vested reasons. On this point, reliance is placed on the following judgments: [i] C/M Lala Babu Baijal Memorial Inter College & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [judgment dated 21.03.2012 in WRIT – C No. – 11760 of 2011]. [ii] Navinbhai Dhirajbhai Kambli & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary & Ors. [judgment dated 02.09.2014 rendered in Special Civil Application No.2155 of 2013]. [iii] Gujarat Pollution Control Board vs. Navinbhai Dhirajbhai Kambli & Ors. [judgment dated 11.03.2015 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1203 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No.2155 of 2013]. [iv] State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors. Reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 . 9.5 It is lastly submitted that the appellants have been appointed after following selection procedure against an open advertisement, and therefore, discontinuing them from service by treating them to be contractual employees is contrary to public policy and amounts to clear exploitation. The hire and fire policy of the University is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. Reported in (2017) 1 SCC 248. 10. Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned counsel for the respondent University submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. According to him, the scope of the present appeals is only to test the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge based upon the material which was available before him. It is further submitted that the challenge by way of the Civil Applications to the advertisement inviting e-tenders to engage an outsourcing agency is beyond the scope of these appeals. It is further submitted that the challenge by way of the Civil Applications to the advertisement inviting e-tenders to engage an outsourcing agency is beyond the scope of these appeals. It is further submitted that the appellants’ appointment being contractual in nature they had no right to challenge the said tender and even if they have any right the same would be a separate cause of action and cannot form part of these appeals. 10.1 Mr. Shelat very emphatically submitted that the work for which the appellants were engaged no longer existed as such their engagements were not continued any further. According to him it is not a case of replacement of ad hoc/temporary/contractual by another set of ad hoc/temporary/contractual employees. It is a clear case of not required. The submission to the contrary according to Mr. Shelat is misconceived and is being misrepresented. 10.2 Mr. Shelat further submitted that the findings of the learned Single Judge being pure finding of facts, the same could not be looked into these appeals and the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 10.3 It is also submitted that the appellants if aggrieved by their discontinuance being illegal, they may agitate the same before appropriate forum by drawing appropriate proceedings. 10.4 It is also submitted by Mr. Shelat that the standard of review to be applied in intra court appeal is well settled in a number of judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. It would not be proper for appellate court to substitute its views with the views of the learned Single Judge merely because another view or better view is possible, unless the finding of the Single Judge is perverse. 10.5 It is next submitted that the appellants are contractual employees and a contractual employee has no right to continue in contractual employment. It is further submitted that a writ petition seeking such relief is not maintainable. 10.6 Mr. Shelat has relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions: [i] Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited vs. Workmen of Narendra & Company reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340 . [ii] Mahavirsinh Narapatsinh Jadeja vs. Saurashtra University [Oral judgment dated 28.07.2020 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.337 of 2020] [iii] Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Spinning Mills Federation Limited & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Dwivedi and Anr. Reported in (2018) 16 SCC 451 . [ii] Mahavirsinh Narapatsinh Jadeja vs. Saurashtra University [Oral judgment dated 28.07.2020 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.337 of 2020] [iii] Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Spinning Mills Federation Limited & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Dwivedi and Anr. Reported in (2018) 16 SCC 451 . [iv] Yogesh Mahajan vs. Professor R.C.Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences reported in (2018) 3 SCC 218 . [v] Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation vs. Paramjeet Singh reported in (2019) 6 SCC 250 . [vi] Sunil Kumar Biswas vs. Ordnance Factory Board and Ors. Reported in (2019) 15 SCC 617 . [vii] Union of India & Ors. Vs. Lieutenant Colonel Dharamvir Singh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 793 . [viii] Sanjay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Narinder Verma & Ors. Reported in (2006) 6 SCC 467 . 11. None of the arguments advanced by Mr. Syed, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants appeal to us. This is not a case of replacement of temporary ad hoc employees by another set of ad hoc or temporary employees. The appellants were engaged on contractual basis for fixed period at fixed pay for specific work. Their period of engagement having come to an end there is no illegality in discontinuing their services. The appellants enjoyed the extension as and when the University thought it proper to grant them depending upon the requirement of work. 11.1 The submissions of Mr. Syed would only attain significance only if it is established that the work which was taken from the appellants is now being outsourced through an agency for fresh engagement. But, according to the University, as per the stand taken in the affidavit filed by it that the work which the appellants were discharging at the respective center is no longer required. 11.2 This is not a case of ad hoc replacing ad hoc employee. If the appellants were engaged for a specific work and their requirement was for a fixed period and if the same is disputed, apparently such disputed facts cannot be resolved under writ jurisdiction. 11.3 The next submission that there are vacancies in the University against which the appellants could be continued also fails for the above reason. Lastly that the University is exploiting by not filling up the regular posts would be a policy decision of the University and this Court cannot enter into that aspect. 11.3 The next submission that there are vacancies in the University against which the appellants could be continued also fails for the above reason. Lastly that the University is exploiting by not filling up the regular posts would be a policy decision of the University and this Court cannot enter into that aspect. Insofar as Civil Applications are concerned, the challenge to the e-tender for engaging an outsourcing agency cannot be entertained for the reason that it was not the subject matter before the learned Single Judge. 11.4 The judgment in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others (supra), would have any application to the facts of the present case. It was a case considering the regularization of the ad hoc / temporary employees and the observations made in paragraphs 46 and 47 to the effect that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee but should be replaced by a regularly selected candidate in order to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the employer. In the present case, the stand of the University is that the University does not require any further services in the office / department where the appellants were working. So it is not a case of replacement of ad hoc by ad hoc or contractual by contractual. The question is as to whether the work exists for which services would be required or not would be a question of fact and can be only decided by leading evidence by the parties. Such disputed question or issue cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11.5 The other judgments viz. [i] Pradeep Navinbhai Patel and others (supra), [ii] State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others (supra), [iii] Kanubhai Karsanbhai Bhava (supra), [iv] Navinbhai Dhirajbhai Kambli and others (supra), [v] Ruchi Sanatkumar Joshi and others (supra), [vi] Prajapati Hitesh Mohanlal (supra), [vii] Narinder Singh Ahuja (supra), and [viii] Committee of Management Lala Babu Baijal Memorial Inter College and another (supra) relied upon by Mr. I.H.Syed relate to replacement of ad hoc / temporary / contractual employees by a fresh set of ad hoc / temporary / contractual employees. I.H.Syed relate to replacement of ad hoc / temporary / contractual employees by a fresh set of ad hoc / temporary / contractual employees. In none of the cases it was an issue as to whether the services of those who are being replaced or that the work which was being performed by those, who were discontinued was still required or not? In the present case, the specific stand of the University is that the work which was being performed by the appellants was no longer required by the University to be continued and as such there was no question of any replacement of the present appellants by the University through an outsourcing agency for carrying the work which they were doing. The requirement of the University is for other posts, but not for the work which was being carried out by the appellants. As such, none of the judgments relied upon by the appellants would have any application to the facts of the present case. 11.6 In the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh and others (supra), it related to the applicability of the principles of equal pay for equal work and thus will have no application to the facts of the present case. 11.7 None of the other judgments relied upon by Shri Syed has any applicability to the facts of the present case in view of the specific stand of the University that the work for which the appellants had been engaged no longer exist and as such there would no case of any replacement of the appellants by a fresh set of contractual employees. 11.8 On the other hand, the judgments relied upon by Mr. Shelat on different aspects may have some relevance, but once we have held that the appellants have not been able to make out a case in order to find any fault with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we do not propose to burden this judgment by referring to the case law relied upon by Mr. Shelat. We, thus do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge warranting interference in appeals. 12. For all the reasons recorded above, both the appeals lack merit and accordingly they are dismissed. Connected Civil Applications also stand disposed off.