JUDGMENT : 1. Since the facts of the case and the controversy involved in all these four writ petitions are common, hence same are being decided by a common order. 2. All these four petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to issue directions to the respondents to give all service benefits including seniority, selection scale, pay increments etc. to them on the post of Teacher Gr.III with all consequential benefits from the date of their first /initial date of appointment forthwith. 3. Mr. Chhotu Ram, Mr. Ram Dhayal, Mr. Ram Dev Singh, Mr. Pokhar Singh, petitioners are present in person. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they were initially appointed as ‘Shiksha Sahayogi’ purely on contractual basis in the year 1990 by the different Panchayat Samities for the period upto the end of Session 1989-90. After the end of Session 1989-90, they were not continued in the job/ service. It is further submitted that when the petitioners came to know that the persons who were earlier engaged on contractual basis as ‘Shiksha Sahayogi’ are being given appointment on the posts of Teacher Gr.III, they also moved applications for appointment on the posts of Teacher Gr.III. In the years 2001, 2002 and 2003, the petitioners were also given appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. One of the allotment/ appointment order dated 19.4.2002 has been placed on record as Annex.5 in SBCWP No.11371/2014. Similar were the allotment/appointment orders of other persons. It is further submitted by the petitioners that on 12.11.2008, the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur, allowed the benefits of seniority, service experience, selection scale etc. with effect from the date of initial appointment to the similarly situated persons and the same benefits were also allowed by the Panchayat Samiti Kotada, District Udaipur to the similarly situated candidates vide order dated 24.09.2009. The petitioners pray that alike the benefits allowed to the similarly situated candidates, they be allowed the benefit of seniority, selection scale etc. with effect from their date of initial appointment i.e. 1990. 5. Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG submits that the claim of the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of the Rules. He further submits that the petitioners were not even on job on contractual basis in between the period 1990-2002. with effect from their date of initial appointment i.e. 1990. 5. Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG submits that the claim of the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of the Rules. He further submits that the petitioners were not even on job on contractual basis in between the period 1990-2002. An additional affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the Finance Department issued a letter dated 12.04.2002 whereby it allowed seniority and service experience benefits to the untrained persons appointed as per rules by the competent authority. In compliance of the said order of the Finance Department, the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur vide its order dated 12.11.2008 allowed seniority from the date of first appointment and financial benefit from the date of re-appointment. It is further stated in the additional affidavit that the order dated 12.04.2002 issued by the Finance Department was withdrawn vide order dated 29.03.2003 and thereafter, the order dated 12.11.2008 issued by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur, which is relied upon by the petitioners in support of their claim, was also withdrawn vide order dated 27.08.2011. It is further stated in the additional affidavit that the order dated 24.09.2009 was also withdrawn by the Panchayat Samiti, Kotada, Udaipur on 25.09.2009. 6. The petitioners could not submit any provisions of law to support their claim that they are entitled for the benefits of seniority and service from the date of their initial appointment, though they were on contractual basis in the year 1990 as Shiksha Sahayogi where they remained in job only for few months. It is also an admitted fact that after the end of Session 1989-90, they were not in the job / service upto their fresh appointment as Teacher Gr.III in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively. The relevant service rules also do not provide for seniority and service benefits from the date of initial appointment, which was purely on contractual basis and also for a short period. The claim of the petitioners is also misconceived in view of the fact that they did not remain in the job/service from 1990 to 2001, 2002 and 2003 when they were appointed as Teacher Gr.III. The claim of the petitioners is also misconceived in view of the fact that they did not remain in the job/service from 1990 to 2001, 2002 and 2003 when they were appointed as Teacher Gr.III. The petitioners claim is purely based on the order dated 12.11.2008 issued by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Dungarpur and also the order dated 24.09.2009 issued by the Panchayat Samiti, Kotada, District Udaipur. In the additional affidavit submitted by the respondents it has been specifically stated that the orders dated 12.11.2008 and 24.09.2009 have already been withdrawn. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 49 has specifically observed that an ad-hoc employee has no right to post and an ad-hoc appointment does not count for the purpose of seniority. 8. The case of the petitioners is of contractual engagement on the post of ‘Shiksha Sahyogi’ for a very short period of 3-4 months in the year 1990 and they were not even in the service from 1990 uptil their fresh appointment as Teacher Gr.III. The claim of the petitioners for grant of seniority from the date of initial appointment on contractual engagement in the year 1990, is not tenable. The claim of the petitioners is solely based on the orders issued by some authorities in favour of similarly situated persons. Since the claim of seniority from the date of initial appointment on contractual basis is contrary to law, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim equity based on illegal orders issued by any authority. It is to be noted that the orders of granting benefits to similarly situated persons, which are being relied upon by the petitioners, have already been withdrawn by the concerned authorities. 9. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. 10. Since the main petitions have been dismissed, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand dismissed. 11. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the connected case files.