JUDGMENT : (Deepak Roshan, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed on daily wager to the post of Data Entry-Cum-Computer Operator on 07.07.2006 in District Transport Office, Giridih, after his name was recommended by the District Information Centre, Giridih. Thereafter, vide various letters were sent by the Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand to Deputy Transport Commissioner, District Transport Officer and to Transport Commissioner containing details of all computer operators (including that of petitioner) appointed in all District Transport Office. Further, vide letter no. 1291 dated 28.09.2007 petitioner was sent for training and after that the petitioner was deputed in different departments where he did his duty to the satisfaction of the authorities. Thereafter, vide letter no. 340 dated 15.03.2007 as per the order of the Hon'ble Governor, Jharkhand, the under-secretary Government of Jharkhand has sent a letter to Accountant General, Jharkhand, for consent of sanction for various posts including Computer Operator in different offices including District Transport Office. On 18.07.2009, the Ministerial Secretariat come out with Notification no.881 dated 18.07.2009 with the scheme of regularization of those employees who have completed 10 years of service in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the State of Jharkhand came out with a Notification no. 1348 dated 13.02.2015 for regularization. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the service of the petitioner has not been regularized even after serving for more than 10 years in the light of direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that from time-to-time respondent no.6 has given satisfactory certificate to the petitioner for his services, as such the case of petitioner was within the knowledge of the respondent authorities; even though, they have not regularized the service of petitioner. 5. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that from time-to-time respondent no.6 has given satisfactory certificate to the petitioner for his services, as such the case of petitioner was within the knowledge of the respondent authorities; even though, they have not regularized the service of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel further contended that on the one hand, the respondent authorities has not regularized the service of the petitioner; and on the other hand, during pendency of the writ petition, vide Memo no.1776 dated 28.12.2018 service of the petitioner has been terminated; that too without any rhyme and reason just because he filed this writ application and one Sushant Kumar Sinha, has been appointed on the same post i.e. on the post of computer operator from JAP IT on contractual basis which is not tenable in the eyes of law as has been settled by catena of Judgments that one set of contractual employees cannot be changed with another set of contractual employees. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that prayer of the petitioner is not maintainable as the petitioner was working on a temporary/ contractual basis as Data Entry-cum-Computer Operator but his appointment was not against any sanctioned post. He further submits that the respondents after giving due consideration of the Hon’ble Apex Court direction, constituted a committee to consider the factual matrix of the case of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.1513 of 2016 [Suresh Walter Nag and others versus the State of Jharkhand and others]. The said committee passed a reasoned order on the basis of "Jharkhand Sarkar Ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup Se Niukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo Ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015" (hereinafter to be referred as “2015 Regularization Rules”). In the aforesaid Rules at Para-2(ii); “irregular appointment” has been defined and the petitioner falls within that definition and as such his appointment was declared to be illegal and hence not fit for regularization. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents it appears that, admittedly the writ petitioner was working as Data Entry-cum-Computer Operator for a period of more than 10 years since his engagement in the Department of Transport. The initial engagement of the writ petitioner is also not questioned, nor any illegality/ irregularity has been brought on record with respect to his engagement. The initial engagement of the writ petitioner is also not questioned, nor any illegality/ irregularity has been brought on record with respect to his engagement. Further, the respondents have replaced the petitioner with a new computer operator on contract basis through JAP IT which suggests that the services of Data Entry-cum-Computer Operators are still required by the respondents. In this regard Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Gupta and Another v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 485 at paragraph 13 thereof, while referring to its earlier judgments in the case of Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana reported in (1985) 4 SCC 43 and also the case of Hargupratap Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 13 SCC 292 , has observed as under: “13. A perusal of the advertisement dated 24-6-2016 issued by the Principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls Post Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is at Annexure P-2 of the appeal paperbook and the advertisement dated 2-7-2016 issued by the Principal, SMS Government Model Science College, Gwalior, M.P., which is at Annexure P-3 of the appeal paperbook, would show that the appointments were to be made after the candidates had gone through due selection procedure. Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously urged that the appointments of the appellants were as guest lecturers and not as ad hoc employees, from the nature of the advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis. It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the judgment of this Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana [Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 43 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 938] and on the order of this Court in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab [Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 618].” 8. Thus, it is now well settled that an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee and must be replaced by a regular selected employee. Thus, it is now well settled that an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee and must be replaced by a regular selected employee. In the case at hand, the petitioner who was a daily wager (on contract basis) was terminated vide Memo no. 1776 dated 28.12.2018 without issuing any show cause notice and was replaced by a new computer operator on contract basis through JAP IT which is per se illegal and arbitrary; as such, Memo no. 1776 dated 28.12.2018 passed by Respondent No. 6, whereby service of the petitioner has been terminated without any rhyme and reason, is hereby, quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. 9. Now coming to the issue of regularization, it appears from Annexure 19 & 20 of the writ application that the State of Jharkhand came out with a Notification no. 1348 dated 13.02.2015 i.e. the Regularization Rules, 2015 for regularization of service of those employees who were appointed prior to 15.11.2000 against which a writ was preferred before this Court and the matter travelled to Hon’ble Apex Court; wherein after the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Regularization Rules, 2015 was amended on 20.06.2019 and cut-off date was fixed from the date of its amendment i.e. 20.06.2019; and thus, the petitioner falls under the category of getting his service regularized. 10. It further appears that the petitioner has completed more than 12 years of service before his termination on 28.12.2018. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer the Judgment rendered in the case of Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that after permitting the services of large number of people for decades, it is not permissible to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. The State has to create them. The relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below: “20. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilisation of the services of a large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. The relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below: “20. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilisation of the services of a large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. The State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need. 35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State.” 11. In view of the above discussion and settled proposition by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also bearing in mind the fact that petitioner has completed more than 12 years of service, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for regularization of his service. Ordered accordingly. It goes without saying that since we have already held the petitioner’s termination as illegal and quashed the impugned order of termination dated 28.12.2018, the respondent authority shall reinstate the petitioner forthwith and undertake the exercise of regularizing the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.