WP(C) 1107/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. S. Cham aria, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Heard also Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, and Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the re maining respondents. The petitioner is an association registered under the Assam Societies Re gistration Act, 1860, and consists of 970 persons, who are members of the associ ation and they had all been working as Krishak Bandhu/Bandhabi under a project, namely, Rastriya Krishi Vikash Yojona, in the district of Kokrajhar. The petitioner association has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the respon dents to allow the members of the petitioner association to continue to work in the post of Krishak Bandhu/Bandhabi for another four years inasmuch as the proje ct aforementioned is, according to the petitioner association, a project, which would be continued for a period of five years. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that t he members of the petitioner association were appointed as Krishak Bandhu/Bandha bi, on a monthly honourarium of Rs. 1,200/-, by notification, dated 16.02.2010, with a clear statement, made in the notification, dated 16.02.2010, aforemention ed, that the engagement of each of the appointees would for one year only and th at their engagement would be automatically cancelled on completion of a period o f one year. The notification aforementioned also clearly stated that no claim o f the appointees for further extension of service would be entertained at any co st. The relevant portion of the said notification reads as under: & & &..He will be paid monthly honorarium @ Rs. 1200.00 (Rupees One thou and two hundred) only for the next one year. His engagement will automatically be cancelled after completion of one year without assigning any notice. No clai m for further extension of service will be entertained at any cost. From a bare reading of the notification/order of appointments, it become s more than abundantly clear that the appointment of each of the members of the petitioner association was contractual in nature and, therefore, no vested right can be claimed by the petitioner association in respect of their respective app ointments/engagements. A contractual appointee has no right to claim appointmen t of permanent nature to the exclusion of others. The nature of appointment of the members of the petitioner association b eing inherently contractual in nature, and no right for claiming regularization of their appointment/ retention in their service having legally vested in them, no direction can be issued to the respondents to continue to retain the members of the petitioner association, particularly, when they have been engaged as Kri shak Bandhu/Bandhabi on the basis of pick and choose policy and not by any regul ar selection process. The persons, who are unemployed (other than the petitione rs) also have the right to be considered for such appointments as the members of the petitioner association had been enjoying. In view of what have been indicated above, this Court is of the firm vie w that the petitioner association has not been able to make out any case warrant ing exercise of this Court’s extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismi ssed. No order as to cost.