JUDGMENT D V S S Somayajulu, J. - This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who have recruited as "Retainers" in the Legal Department of the first respondent-company. They were recruited pursuant to an advertisement in September, 2014. The appointment orders were given to them on 20.12.2014 and the same were periodically extended from time to time. As the respondents recently published a fresh notice/advertisement on 09.12.2020 calling applications for the post of Assistant Manager (2 legal posts) on a contract basis, the present writ petition is filed questioning the said advertisement as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Paira Singh and others, (1992) 4 SCC 118 . The consequential prayer is to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners. 2. The learned counsel for petitioner states that the facts are not in serious dispute. It is very clearly mentioned in the initial appointment dated 20.12.2014 itself that the petitioners were working on contract basis, which shall come to an end on the completion of the tenure. Clause 14 clearly mentions that the petitioners are not entitled to permanency of employment or for extension. However, the case of the petitioners is that they have faithfully discharged their duties from 2014 onwards till the filing of the writ petition. There was no complaint against their services and in fact it is argued that the General Manager has recommended their case for extension also on the ground that they have rendered good services. In the writ petition itself, case law is also mentioned. He argues that the fact that the contract was extended for years shows that the petitioner's services are beneficial / useful for the respondent. Therefore, the prayer is for regularization and to set aside the advertisement. 3. He submits that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Paira Singh's case (1 supra), one set of contract employees cannot be replaced by other set of contract employees. Relying upon the contents of the advertisement, learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners are doing the very same duty for which fresh applications are invited. He points out that the respondents again invited applications for "temporary appointment for a period of two years on a fixed term basis", which is contrary to law. Relying upon the contents of the advertisement, learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners are doing the very same duty for which fresh applications are invited. He points out that the respondents again invited applications for "temporary appointment for a period of two years on a fixed term basis", which is contrary to law. According to him, once there is no difference in the scope of duties, the petitioners cannot be replaced by another set of temporary contract employees. Relying upon the work experience certificates given to the petitioners he points out that the description of the duties / responsibilities mentioned in the work experience certificate tally completely with the "detailed charter of duties of the legal department Appendix-G", which is a part of the new advertisement that has been issued. Therefore, he submits that for the very same set of duties, another pair of temporary employees are being recruited. Finally, he argues that as the initial appointment of the petitioners is correct and is pursuant to a public notice, they are entitled for regularization. The other aspects that are raised are that of the TA, DA etc., that is paid to the petitioners on par with the regular employees. 4. For the respondent Nos.1 and 2 Sri P.Rajashekhar, learned counsel appears and argues. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are appointed only on contractual basis. Therefore, he submits that they do not have a right to seek a Mandamus or to seek extension let alone regularization. According to him, they are not working in a sanctioned post. In addition, there is no regularization policy in the respondent organisation to grant relief to the petitioners. Apart from that he submits that the terms of the contract entered into between the parties are crystal clear. They are recruited only for a limited purpose and for a fixed point of time. Therefore, he argues that petitioners are not entitled to regularization or to seek a Mandamus or to seek any relief from this Court. It is submitted that the second advertisement that is now questioned is issued not merely for these two posts but for a number of other posts depending upon the "employee planning" etc., of the respondent- Organization. He argues that this is exclusive domain of the respondents. He points out that the entire advertisement process should not be stalled particularly, by contractual employees. He argues that this is exclusive domain of the respondents. He points out that the entire advertisement process should not be stalled particularly, by contractual employees. He also relies upon the work experience certificates taken by the petitioners to argue that they had decided to work elsewhere and took the certificates but later they filed the speculative litigation. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006) AIR SC 1806 and of a learned single Judge of this Court in P.Devakanth v. State of A.P.,2021 SCCOnlineAP 268, learned counsel argues that the petitioners are not entitled to regularization or to any other relief. 5. For the 3rd respondent, learned Assistant Solicitor General appears and states that this is essentially a matter between the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that the Union of India has nothing to say in the matter. Consideration by the Court: 6. The facts that are not in dispute are: (a) that the first advertisement was published in September, 2014 inviting applications from varieties of professionals including legal; Ship Building etc. (b) the petitioners were appointed by an order dated 20.12.2014. It is specified more than once that the employment would come to an end on the completion of the tenure. It has also clarified that the petitioners cannot not claim permanency or extension. (c) The said contract is extended from time to time last up to 14.05.2021. The last order dated 14.05.2020. (d) The letters, e-mails of the General Manager, Assistant General Manager-Legal show that petitioners had discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the respondents. The Assistant General Manager, in fact, recommended extension for one year from March, 2020 to March, 2021. The petitioners also assisted their office in defending the cases pertaining to the respondents. (e) The 'second' advertisement is issued in December, 2020. 7. The charter of duties described under the impugned notification of 2016 and the duties performed by the petitioners are set out below in a tabular form: Sr.No. Detailed Charter of Duties of Legal Department (As per the 2nd Advertisement) Functions of Legal Department by B.V.Subba Rao ADDL GM (Legal) (By present Petitioners) Appointed as per 1st advertisement 1. 7. The charter of duties described under the impugned notification of 2016 and the duties performed by the petitioners are set out below in a tabular form: Sr.No. Detailed Charter of Duties of Legal Department (As per the 2nd Advertisement) Functions of Legal Department by B.V.Subba Rao ADDL GM (Legal) (By present Petitioners) Appointed as per 1st advertisement 1. Deals with all kinds of court cases and arbitration matters etc, relating to contract, civil, labour and service related issues pertaining to yard Defending the Court cases and Arbitration matters pertaining to Contracts, Civil, Labor and service related issues before various Courts, Tribunals and Forums. 2. Defend cases before various Courts and Tribunals Appointment of Arbitrators and arranging sitting arrangements for Arbitral proceedings 3. Engaging Advocates and Drafting of Pleadings Appointment of Advocates, Briefing and assisting them in preparation of Pleadings and making them ready for arguments. 4. Briefing of Cases to Advocates and Drafting of pleadings Fixation and processing of advocates and arbitrators fee bills. 5. Providing legal opinions and advice to the departments on various issues. Providing Legal opinions and advice to the departments of HSL on various issues. 6. Vetting of legal instruments like Agreements, MoUs etc. Vetting and drafting legal instruments like Agreements/Contracts/Tenders and MoUs etc. 8. It is clear that the duties are virtually the same. The proposed fresh recruitment is for the two Assistant Managers (Legal) on a contract basis/fixed terms basis by replacing the present petitioners. The judgment which has relied upon very strongly by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the case of Paira Singh's case (1 supra). In this judgment itself, in the conclusion portion, the following is said: "44. Before parting with this case, we think it appropriate to say a few words concerning the issue of regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees in government service. 45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee. 46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. 47. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. 48. An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes. 49. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State." (emphasis supplied) 9. It is on this basis, the learned counsel argues that the petitioners cannot be replaced by another set of two officers (with a slightly higher qualification), on a contract basis or a fixed term basis. He argues that the petitioners are entitled to regularization also as prayed for. 10. In contradistinction to this, this Court notices that in Umadevi's case (2 supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case of regularization of employees. He argues that the petitioners are entitled to regularization also as prayed for. 10. In contradistinction to this, this Court notices that in Umadevi's case (2 supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case of regularization of employees. In para 17 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that directions to regularize employees cannot be given without considering the financial impact of the said direction. In para 34, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rule of equality is a basic feature in public economy. The General rule is recruitment through public notification and inviting applications. Where a contractual appointment is insisted, it is reiterated that the contractual appointment comes to an end at the end of the period of the contract. Similarly, in para 38 also, the Constitution Bench noticed that when a person enters a temporary employment or gets encouragement as a contractual or casual labour, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual. In para 43, it was held that the temporary employees do not have a right vested in them to seek a Mandamus. The Constitution Bench reiterated that before a Mandamus is issued, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party has a right under the statute or the rule. It is noticed by the Constitution Bench that the temporary employees do not have a legal right to seek a Mandamus to be permanently employed. In Umadevi's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also discussed the judgment of Piara Singh's case (1 supra). Ultimately, the Constitution Bench came to the conclusion that as a one-time measure, services of "irregularly" employed persons who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts alone should be regularized and the rest of the relief was negatived. This is a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and its binding nature on this Court need not be stated again. Therefore, persons, who are recruited for a temporary period and contrary to the normal constitutional mandate of recruitment through employment exchange etc., cannot as a matter of right, claim regularization. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in P.Devakanth's case (3 supra). Therefore, persons, who are recruited for a temporary period and contrary to the normal constitutional mandate of recruitment through employment exchange etc., cannot as a matter of right, claim regularization. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in P.Devakanth's case (3 supra). In that case also, a learned single Judge held that as the petitioners joined on a contractual basis, they would not have any "right" to seek extension or regularization. This Court also has to agree with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge. 12. Apart from the above, the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India still holds the field till date. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of regularization. In the opinion of this Court the same cannot be granted as a consequential relief also. So on both the grounds this prayer is refused. 13. The other issue that survives for consideration is, whether the second advertisement inviting applications for two posts on a contract or temporary basis is valid or not. 14. The judgment in Paira Singh's case (1 supra), in the opinion of this Court, is not completely overruled by the judgment in Umadevi's case (2 supra). The findings given in Paira Singh's case are reproduced earlier. Therefore, it is clear that an ad hoc or a temporary employee/contractual employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee. He can only be replaced by a regularly selected employee. Despite a plethora of reported cases on this subject, the issue still continues. Even as on date, respondents are following the same system for appointing temporary consultants/officers without any clear reasons. The charter of duties spelt out above clearly indicates the duties that were performed by the petitioners are the same duties that will be assigned to the new incumbents. The petitioners were taken on contract basis, but with virtually the same set of duties/responsibilities but with a higher pay two others are proposed to be recruited on a "contract". It is not clear why the respondents could not take steps to invite applications for a regular appointment. Learned counsel for the respondent sought to distinguish the petitioners' case by stating that applications are invited for a 'sanctioned post'. It is not clear why the respondents could not take steps to invite applications for a regular appointment. Learned counsel for the respondent sought to distinguish the petitioners' case by stating that applications are invited for a 'sanctioned post'. No data or proof is filed to show that the new post of Assistant Manager is a 'sanctioned post'. In the absence of any clear data and as the charter of duties are same / identical, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are attempting to replace two contract employees with another two contract employees. In the opinion of this Court, the same is not permissible. 15. In these circumstances, the advertisement dated 09.12.2020 in so far as it relates to Assistant Manager (legal-2 posts) only is set aside. It is hoped that as a public sector undertaking the respondents would ensure that regular appointments are made as soon as possible. 16. Before parting with this case one more point has to be answered. The learned counsel relied upon Hargurpratap Singh v State of Punjab and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 292 etc., for seeking directions. In the opinion of this Court and with the greatest respect the judgment in Hargurpratap Singh case (4 supra) cannot be treated a "precedent". It is an order passed in the peculiar facts of the said case only. There is no visible ratio or a decision on a question of law in that citation. 17. With these directions, the Writ Petition is partially allowed. No order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.