JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. Acharyya, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Oil India Limited (OIL) appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel representing the private respondent Nos. 9 to 12. None has appeared for the respondent No. 13. 2. The writ petitioner herein is aggrieved due to non-consideration of his prayer for regularization of services under the Oil India Limited (OIL) even after completing 10 years of contractual service. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 26-01-2007 the OIL, Duliajan had issued an advertisement for engaging experienced mechanical engineer on contract basis for a purely temporary requirement for “Pipeline Expansion Project” from Numaligarh to Siliguri (PEP-NSPL). The advertisement itself had mentioned that the contract would be valid for a period of one year or till completion of the project. In response to the advertisement notice dated 26-01-2007, the writ petitioner had submitted his application. After considering his candidature the petitioner was engaged on contract basis as a mechanical engineer vide appointment order dated 23-04-2007 for a period of one year. Accordingly, a contract agreement was signed by and between the petitioner and the OIL for rendering service for one year. As the scope of the work and period of its completion got extended, the petitioner was re-engaged as mechanical engineer after the expiry of the initial period of one year. Accordingly, separate contract agreements for rendering his service under the OIL for further durations were also signed from time to time. Eventually, the contractual services of the petitioner came to an end on 18-11-2017. 3. In the meantime, the OIL had issued an advertisement notice dated 12-07-2017 inviting applications for filling up various posts in Gr-‘C’, which included as many as 04 (four) posts of Senior Pipeline Engineer. The advertisement notice dated 12-07-2017 had laid down the educational qualification, experience and other eligibility conditions for participating in the recruitment process. Since the petitioner was over-aged, hence, he could not submit his application in response to the advertisement notice dated 12-07-2017. Situated thus, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4642/2017 inter-alia challenging the advertisement notice dated 12-07-2017 with a further prayer to regularize his services in a permanent post. Since the petitioner was over-aged, hence, he could not submit his application in response to the advertisement notice dated 12-07-2017. Situated thus, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4642/2017 inter-alia challenging the advertisement notice dated 12-07-2017 with a further prayer to regularize his services in a permanent post. Since no interim order was granted by this Court, the recruitment process went ahead and the same was concluded whereby, the selected candidates, viz. the private respondents herein were appointed. With the appointment of the private respondents, W.P.(C) No. 4642/2017 had become infractuous for all practical purposes. As such, on a prayer made by the writ petitioner by filing I.A.(C) No. 1476/2020, this Court had passed order dated 09-10-2020, permitting the petitioner to withdraw the said writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 4642/2017. 4. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has once again approached before this Court with a prayer to interfere with the advertisement notice dated 12-07-2017 and also to issue a direction upon the respondents to regularize his services. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the Central Information Commissioner to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent No. 6 on account of his alleged failure to follow the mandate of Right to Information Act, 2005, whereby the respondent No. 6 had allegedly furnished false information to the petitioner with malafide intent. 5. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has been contested by the OIL authorities as well as the private respondents by filing separate counter affidavits. The stand of the authorities, reduced to it essence, is that the petitioner being a contractual appointee, whose continuance was purely on the basis of separate contract agreements entered from time to time, the petitioner cannot claim any right of regularization of his service against a permanent vacancy. 6. Mr. B. Acharyya, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has argued that having rendered long and continuous years of service for more than 10 years and in view of the nature of work performed by the petitioner which was of perennial nature, it would not be open for the authorities to dispense with the service of petitioner in such a manner. Mr. Acharyya submits that keeping in mind the experience and long years of service rendered by the petitioner, the OIL authorities were duty bound to permanently absorb the petitioner by regularizing his services. Mr. Acharyya submits that keeping in mind the experience and long years of service rendered by the petitioner, the OIL authorities were duty bound to permanently absorb the petitioner by regularizing his services. Hence, this writ petition. In order to buttress his above argument, Mr. Acharyya has placed heavy reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jaggo Vs. UoI & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 1034 7. Mr. A. Sarma, learned standing counsel, OIL, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner does not have any enforceable right and considering the fact that the duly selected candidates, on being appointed, are continuing in service for more than 05 years, at this stage, there cannot be any question of interfering with their orders of appointments. 8. Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the private respondents has also made similar submission by contending that no case has been made out by the petitioner so as to interfere with the appointment of his clients. 9. I have considered the submission advanced at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to mention herein that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was originally engaged as contractual employee for a period of one year. A contract agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner and the OIL which had clearly mentioned that the engagement of the petitioner would be for a period of one year. Thereafter, the petitioner was engaged from time to time on several occasions albeit, based on separate contractual agreements, inter-alia laying down the duration of his engagement on each occasion. On some occasions, the engagement of the petitioner was for a period of six months, while in some others, it was upto one year. However, there was a break in between the successive contractual engagements of the petitioner ranging between 02 days to upto 16 days on odd occasions. Therefore, it is not a fact that the petitioner has been in continuous engagement under the OIL. Be that as it may, since the writ petitioner was on contractual employment under the OIL, based on different contract agreements containing specific terms and conditions of service, his service conditions would be strictly governed by the terms of the contract. Therefore, it is not a fact that the petitioner has been in continuous engagement under the OIL. Be that as it may, since the writ petitioner was on contractual employment under the OIL, based on different contract agreements containing specific terms and conditions of service, his service conditions would be strictly governed by the terms of the contract. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that his engagement at any point of time was against a regular/ permanent vacancy. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the question of absorbing the petitioner against a regular vacancy, that too, without his participation in a selection process, cannot arise in the eyes of law. In other words, permitting a contractual appointee to be absorbed against a regular vacancy without undergoing a regular selection/ recruitment process would amount to allowing backdoor entry in service which, in the opinion of this Court, would not be permissible under the law. Unfortunately when the advertisement notice dated 12- 07-2017 was issued, the petitioner was over-aged as a result of which he could not take part in the recruitment process. This Court is of the opinion that although all sympathy would go with the petitioner, yet, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, no enforceable right of the petitioner to be regularized in service against a permanent vacancy can be recognized by this Court. 10. In the case of Jaggo (Supra) , the petitioners therein, who were all engaged as Safaiwalas on ad-hoc basis, were allowed to continue for long years. Those petitioners had claimed regularization in service by urging that due to the continuous and long years of service rendered by them and the nature of duty performed by them, they were entitled to be regularized in service. The applicants had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, Delhi seeking regularization of service, which prayer was rejected by the learned CAT. The High Court of Judicature at Delhi had also confirmed the order of the learned Tribunal. Embolden by the decision of the Tribunal, the authorities had terminated the service of the applicants without issuing any prior notice. The High Court of Judicature at Delhi had also confirmed the order of the learned Tribunal. Embolden by the decision of the Tribunal, the authorities had terminated the service of the applicants without issuing any prior notice. It was in such fact situation, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that workers engaged on temporary basis for extended period, specially when their roles are integral to the organizations functioning, would have a right to be considered for regularization. Consequently, a direction was issued to the authorities to take back the applicants by setting aside their orders of termination from service. 11. After going thought the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment rendered in the case of Jaggo (Supra) is clearly distinguishable facts. That was not a case where the initial engagement of the employees were on contractual basis. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio law laid down in the case of Jaggo (Supra) will not have any bearing, in the facts of the present case. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to cost.