ORDER This is intra Court appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 13-3-2019 passed in W. P. No. 1616/2018 and other connected matters whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1. The learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition relying upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench in W. A. No.418/2017 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Puneet Mohan Khare dated 5-2-2018. 2. Counsel representing the State had not disputed the same. The directions issued by the Division Bench in the case of Puneet Mohan Khare (supra) were made applicable to the present case mutatis mutandis. 3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the statement made on behalf of the appellant, not disputing the applicability of the order passed by the Division Bench in the facts of the present case was incorrect. It is submitted that the judgment passed in the case of Puneet Mohan Khare (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is argued that a scheme was formulated by the State Government to give training to the tribal youths for self-employment and in pursuance to that scheme, the respondent No.1 was appointed as training official on contract basis in the different vocational training centers. The respondents issued order dated 24-1-2017 directing not to select the trainees for training in the training center and to stop training. The salary of the trainers was also stopped. The said order was challenged by the respondent No.1 in the writ petition which has been disposed off by the impugned order. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Division Bench in the case of Puneet Mohan Khare(supra) issued the directions considering the facts of the said case, that a contract employee cannot be substituted by another contract employee. In the present case, the scheme under which the respondent No.1 was appointed on contract basis itself has been closed and they are not making any appointment in place of the respondent No.1 on contract basis. He has referred to various paras of the reply filed on behalf of the appellants. 5. In the present case, the scheme under which the respondent No.1 was appointed on contract basis itself has been closed and they are not making any appointment in place of the respondent No.1 on contract basis. He has referred to various paras of the reply filed on behalf of the appellants. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench in the case of Puneet Mohan Khare (supra), we find that the petition was wrongly disposed off by the learned Single Judge in view of the order passed in the case of Puneet Mohan Khare (supra). In the said case the scheme was continued and the respondents were going to engage another set of contractual employees. In the present case, the scheme itself has been closed and the appellants are not making any new appointment on contractual basis under the said scheme. It is settled law that a concession made on wrong premises of facts and law is not binding on the party. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the impugned orders passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions are set aside and the petitions are remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide the case on its own merit. 7. With the aforesaid, the writ appeals are allowed and disposed off.