1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 470 of 2001 SHAHDAD KHAN V/S STATE & ORS Mr. MANOJ JOSHI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. OP BOOB, A.G.A., for the respondent Date of Order : 18.12.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J. ORDER ----- The learned Single Judge by the judgment dt. 25.4.2001 has dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner was appointed for a fix term, and he cannot say that he is not bound by the terms and conditions as incorporated in the appointment order. Thus, the prayers made in the writ petition not to terminate the services of the petitioner, and for regularising the services of the petitioner in regular pay scale have been refused. We need not go into much details of the matter as it is not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant was appointed for specific period of time being three months vide Annexure-9. Of course, he continued thereafter for some time but then there is nothing to show that he was 2 appointed in a regular manner by following the procedure laid down under the relevant rules for recruitment. In such circumstances, now in view of the Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in JT 2006(4) SC-420, the petitioner-appellant is not entitled to any relief whatever as claimed. We may by the way observe that the respondents have clearly come with a case that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, and now since there is no budget available, and henceforth no such contract employee shall be continued. Thus, taken from any stand point, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order to grant any relief to the petitioner-appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/