ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the petitioners be not discontinued until the regular recruitment on the post of ‘Medical Officer’ takes place in the concerned District Churu. 2. Admittedly, regularly selected candidates have now been appointed at PHC Rajasar Bikaan, Block Sardarshahar, District Churu & PHC Aasalsar, Block Sardarshahar, District Churu respectively where petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are working and hence their services are sought to be discontinued. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that although regularly selected candidates have joined at aforementioned places but then several other vacant positions do exist in District Churu and the petitioners deserve to be adjusted qua the said vacant posts. 4. Counsel further submits that in other Districts, the incumbents therein have been adjusted qua the other vacant post whereas it is only the present District where the incumbents are not being adjusted qua other vacant posts. 5. Counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the first Proviso to Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1963’) submitted that the appointment made on urgent temporary basis cannot be discontinued unless and until a refusal of concurrence to continue, by the Commission is made. 6. Heard the counsel. 7. First Proviso to Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963 reads as under: “Provided that such an appointment will not be continued beyond a period of one year without referring the case to the Commission for concurrence, where such concurrence is necessary, and shall be terminated immediately on its refusal to concur.” 8. A bare perusal of the above provision clearly reflects that the same specifically provides that the appointment made on urgent temporary basis for a specific period cannot be continued beyond a period of one year and if any extension is to be made, the same can only be done with the concurrence of the Commission. 9. It is incomprehensible as to how the said provision would aid the present petitioners. The present is not a case of extension of period of service and hence in the specific opinion of this Court, the Proviso to Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963 as relied upon by counsel for the petitioners shall not even apply. 10. 9. It is incomprehensible as to how the said provision would aid the present petitioners. The present is not a case of extension of period of service and hence in the specific opinion of this Court, the Proviso to Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963 as relied upon by counsel for the petitioners shall not even apply. 10. Admittedly, regularly selected candidates have been appointed at PHC Rajasar Bikaan, Block Sardarshahar, District Churu & PHC Aasalsar, Block Sardarshahar, District Churu respectively and therefore, it cannot be observed that the petitioners have any indefeasible right to be continued. No contractual employee appointed for a specific limited period can, as a matter of right, claim to be continued. In State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 while reiterating the said principle, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “As regards to the temporary/ad hoc employees in govt. service, the normal rule is regular recruitment through prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee.” 11. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 Hon’ble the Apex Court while laying down the said principle observed as under: “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.” 12. This Court is of the clear opinion that if the services of the petitioners were extended with a specific condition, the same definitely has to be adhered to. 13. From the above ratio, it can be safely inferred that when a contractual employee is hired with the understanding that his/her employment will end once a permanent replacement is found, he/she cannot later claim the right to remain in the position after a regularly selected person is appointed. 14. So far as the ground of other posts remaining vacant is concerned, it is the complete discretion of the respondent department to fill up the said posts or not. It is not the case of the petitioners that any fresh tender has been invited for the said vacant posts. 15. In view of the above facts, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the present petition. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the Court again if the alleged vacant posts are sought to be filled up by other set of contractual employees. 16. The present writ petition is hence, disposed of.