D.K. Seth, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the purported order of termination as well as the purported recruitment sought to be made through an advertisement contained in Annexure 'G' to this writ petition. Mr. Ganguly, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner having been appointed in the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer and having worked there for long 3 years, has acquired a temporary statues and is entitled to regularisation and cannot be eased out by means of an order of termination and at the same time the respondents cannot fill up the vacancy by fresh recruitment. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited vs. Brojo Nath Ganguli, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571, in order to contend that after the expiry of 120 days, the petitioner having acquired temporary status and having continued for almost 3 years, his appointment cannot be deemed to be fortutious appointment. He has also relied upon the decision in the case of Union of India vs. K. G. Radhakrishna Panickar and Ors., reported in 1998(8) SCC 111, wherein the acquisition of temporary stat