JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification as contained in memo no. 395 dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the Director-cum- Joint Secretary, Department of Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Government of Jharkhand whereby, according to the petitioners, they being the ad hoc employees are sought to be replaced by another set of ad hoc employees. Further prayer has been made seeking a declaration that the ad hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad hoc employees on same eligibility criteria and to further hold that the respondent authorities are duty bound to regularize the petitioners in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Narendra Kumari Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand’ instead of making ad hoc irregular appointment by adopting shortcut method. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for effective and efficient functioning of Gram Panchayats in the State of Jharkhand, the Department of Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Government of Jharkhand, vide notification as contained in memo no. 689 dated 26.02.2016 issued by the Secretary, Department of Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no.1), directed that 10% of the total amount granted by the 14 th Finance Commission would be spent on administrative and technical support of ‘Gram Panchayats’. The Department of Rural Development (Panchayati Raj) thereafter sanctioned 1467 posts of Accounts Clerk-cum-Computer Operator (one Accounts Clerk- cum-Computer Operator for three Panchayats each), 526 posts of Junior Engineers (two Junior Engineers in each Block), 263 posts of Assistant Engineer (one Assistant Engineer in each Block) and 24 posts of Executive Engineer (one Executive Engineer in each district). Subsequently, the Department of Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Government of Jharkhand laid down the requisite qualifications as well as process for appointment and conditions of services in detail, which provided that the Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers would be appointed by the Department of Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Government of Jharkhand on the basis of recommendations made by the State Level Selection Committee. whereas the Junior Engineers and Accounts Clerk-cum- Computer Operators would be appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district on the basis of the recommendations made by the District Level Selection Committee. 3. whereas the Junior Engineers and Accounts Clerk-cum- Computer Operators would be appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district on the basis of the recommendations made by the District Level Selection Committee. 3. It is further submitted that pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2016, the petitioners applied for the post of Junior Engineer (petitioner nos. 1 to 5 for Godda District and petitioner no. 6 for Garhwa District). Subsequently they were called for Efficiency Test and Computer Test in which they were declared successful and selected for appointment on the said post on contract basis. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that their appointment made on contractual basis was an ad hoc appointment as the same was sanctioned against vacant post, however for a particular period. The petitioners were appointed under the 14 th Finance Commission which ended on 30.3.2020, however they were provided extension of their contractual engagement even after expiry of the said period. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioners were appointed on the said posts under the 14 th Finance Commission for the purpose of carrying out and discharging the works related to ‘Gram Panchayats’ and they were paid salary from the amount granted to ‘Gram Panchayats’ by the 14 th Finance Commission which came into force on 01.04. 2015 for a period of five years ending on 31.03.2020. The services of the petitioners were supposed to end on 31.03.2020 with the end of the tenure of the 14 th Finance Commission, however the same were extended till 31.12.2020 with an assurance that they would be further continued. 6. It is also submitted that from the date of their appointment, the petitioners discharged their duties for about five years to the utmost satisfaction of all concerned under legitimate expectation that their services would be regularised and they would be continued in their services. However, surprisingly, the respondents vide notification as contained in memo no. 395 dated 19.02.2021, arbitrarily initiated a fresh appointment process for 526 posts of Junior Engineer and 869 posts of Accounts Clerk-cum-Computer Operator on contractual basis for implementation, monitoring and executions of works related to the schemes under the 15 th Finance Commission on same set of eligibility. The petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and they are now being replaced by new incumbents being appointed on ad hoc basis on same set of eligibility. The petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and they are now being replaced by new incumbents being appointed on ad hoc basis on same set of eligibility. The action of respondents in displacing an ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement on same set of eligibility criteria is unfair and unjust in eyes of law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors. reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 , an ad hoc or temporary employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, rather he can only be replaced by a regular employee which is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. In the present case, the respondents have also replaced the one set of ad hoc employees i.e., the petitioners by appointing new set of ad hoc employes vide impugned notification as contained in memo no. 395 dated 19.02.2021 and as such the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned S.C. (Mines)-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, while referring to counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5, submits that extension of the petitioners’ contractual engagement was given till December, 2020 only on the condition of availability of fund of 14 th Finance Commission. 9. It is also submitted that simply by engaging the petitioners for some other work does not mean that they are to be treated as regular employees under the State Government. In fact, the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for the period of 14 th Finance Commission i.e. for the year 2015- 2020 and hence, they do not have any right to claim extension of services. 10. It is further submitted that following the direction of the 15 th Finance Commission issued by the Government of India, the process of preparation of district level panel of eligible candidates was initiated vide impugned notification as contained in memo no. 395 dated 19.02.2021, however the concerned Panchayats are at liberty to take their services as per their requirement on contract basis. 11. 395 dated 19.02.2021, however the concerned Panchayats are at liberty to take their services as per their requirement on contract basis. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis and not on ad hoc basis and there is much different between an ad hoc employee and a contractual employee. The petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a limited period under 14 th Finance Commission. Moreover, as per the guidelines of 15 th Finance Commission, the employees working prior to initiation of 15 th Finance Commission either on regular basis or on contractual basis were not to be paid honorarium from the fund of 15 th Finance Commission. Hence, a fresh appointment on contractual basis was to be made under 15 th Finance Commission. 12. It is further submitted that the judgment rendered in the case of Piara Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 is that as per the guidelines issued by the 15 th Finance Commission, the employees working prior to 15 th Finance Commission either on regular basis or on contractual basis were not to be paid honorarium from the fund of 15 th Finance Commission. 15. Admittedly, the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis for implementation of different schemes under the 14 th Finance Commission, the period of which has already come to an end. Keeping in view the guidelines of 15 th Finance Commission, a fresh appointment on contractual basis was to be made for implementation of the scheme. Under the said circumstance, the impugned notification as contained in memo no. 395 dated 19.02.2021 was issued by the Department of Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Government of Jharkhand, for appointment of Junior Engineers as well as Accounts Clerks-cum-Computer Operators. 16. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the nature of the petitioners’ engagement has to be termed as “contractual” that too for the purpose of execution of the schemes under the 14 th Finance Commission. 16. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the nature of the petitioners’ engagement has to be termed as “contractual” that too for the purpose of execution of the schemes under the 14 th Finance Commission. Hence, the petitioners’ claim that they being the ad hoc employees are being replaced by another set of ad hoc employees is misconceived. Consequently, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh (supra) has also no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned notification as contained in memo no. 395 dated 19.02.2021 issued by the Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Government of Jharkhand. 18. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.