1 (1)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.966/2004 ( Dr.D.S.Sontakke v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (2)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1058/2004 ( Dr.D.S.Mankari v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) DATE OF ORDER :: 14 th May, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. R.S.Shekhawat for Mr.P.S.Bhati,for the petitioners. Mr. N.M.Lodha, Additional Advocate General. .... These two petitions for writ being based on common facts and similar questions of law are disposed of by this common order. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioners were in employment of the respondents in capacity of Veterinary doctors purely on adhoc basis for a fixed term. By an order dated 29.6.2000 the services of the petitioners were terminated w.e.f. 30.6.2000. At the same time, the respondents proceeded for regular selections to fill in 183 existing vacant posts of Veterinary doctors in accordance with the rules. As a consequent to the regular selection proceedings as stated above, 150 posts of Veterinary doctors out of available 183 vacancies were filled in and 33 posts remained vacant. Certain doctors who too were working on adhoc basis alongwith the petitioners being aggrieved by their termination from service approached this Court 2 by way of filing writ petitions and those petitions for writ were rejected, however, Division Bench of this Court in appeal directed the respondents to fill in 33 vacancies from among the doctors who were earlier working as Veterinary doctors in adhoc capacity. Pertinent to note that the petitioners did not choose to file any writ petition then. After disposal of the special appeal as referred above, the petitioners preferred these petitions for writ challenging the order of termination dated 29.6.2000 and also a decision of the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioners for their appointment in adhoc capacity against existing 33 vacancies. The contention of the petitioners is that their termination was illegal and they deserve to be recruited against existing 33 vacancies on adhoc basis till availability of regularly selected candidates. In reply to the writ petition the specific stand of the respondents is that the petitioners never assailed validity of their termination order prior to these petitions for writ and the persons similarly situated who assailed validity of their termination from service have already been employed in pursuant to the directions given by Division Bench. All existing 33 vacancies have already been filled in and at present no vacancy is available against which appointment can be given to the petitioners. 3 Heard counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that appointment of the petitioners was purely on adhoc capacity, as such no right they have to hold the post after availability of regularly selected incumbents. It is true that the Division Bench of this Court issued directions to continue the adhoc Veterinary doctors against 33 vacancies those remained unfilled in even after holding regular selection proceedings but those vacancies have already been filled in by the respondents from among the persons who earlier approached this Court. There was no question of considering case of the petitioners for such appointments as at that time they never assailed validity of their termination and also not claimed for appointment against unfilled posts. At this stage, no vacancy is admittedly available with the respondents and, therefore, no direction now can be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Veterinary doctors in adhoc capacity till availability of selected candidates. In result, in view of the discussion made above, these petitions for writ are dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.