JUDGMENT : Ms. Ritu Bahri, CJ. This bunch of Special Appeals involved a common question, hence, these Special Appeals are being decided by a common judgment. For brevity, facts of Special Appeal No. 395 of 2021, are being taken into consideration. 2. The appellant has come up in the Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10th September, 2021, whereby, his prayer to allow him to continue to serve under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS), has been dismissed. 3. The short question for consideration in the present Special Appeals is that the petitioner-appellant was appointed in the year 2015 and has been dis-continued to work after 2018. The relevant instructions, which had been made applicable to work under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) is Annexure-4, page 34 of the Writ Petition. 4. These are the instructions dated 22nd December, 2017, and as per Clause 8, 9 and 10, the term, how long a person can work on the post, has been clarified. The duration of the contractual employment has been two years, whereas, the second year’s extension is granted based on the specific performance of the first year. The petitioner-appellant in the present case was appointed in the year 2015 and has continued to work till 2018. Hence, for all practical purposes, the term of the petitioner-appellant was extended after one year. As per clause-10, the enhanced duration as per the letter dated 24th May, 2011, will not be applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 2018. 5. Hence, the petitioner-appellant now cannot claim benefit of the extension of the services as per the Circular dated 24th May, 2011, Annexure-3. Clause-10 further provided that all contractual employees, who had completed two years as on 31st May, 2018, will have to mandatorily apply afresh, if they want to work on the contractual basis. It further provided that they will participate under the selection process on merits. 6. On this ground itself, the petitioner-appellant cannot continue to work after 2018, because Clause-10 provides that they have to participate in the selection process after 31st March, 2018. 7. On a specific query being put, the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant is not disputing the fact that fresh selection process was initiated in the year 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant states that the petitioner-appellant never challenged the instructions, annexure-4, dated 22nd December, 2017. 7. On a specific query being put, the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant is not disputing the fact that fresh selection process was initiated in the year 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant states that the petitioner-appellant never challenged the instructions, annexure-4, dated 22nd December, 2017. In this backdrop, the entire selection process as per his instructions was completed in 2018 and as per the instructions, Clause-10, the petitioner-appellant was to apply afresh and to participate in the selection process on merit. Since these instructions had been issued and are being followed till date, no cause is made out to interfere in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. Hence, the Special Appeals are dismissed.