V.K. Jain, J.

1. The appellant before us, having taken voluntary retirement from Army, applied to the respondent-National Human Rights Commission ('NHRC') for appointment to the post of Constable. Vide Office Memorandum dated 30th April, 1996 the appellant was offered appointment on contractual basis on the terms and conditions stipulated in the said Office Memorandum. One of the conditions stipulated in the Office Memorandum was that the appointment would be on contractual basis for a period of one year from the date he assumed charge. Pursuant to the said Office Memorandum, the appellant joined NHRC on the same date. The aforesaid employment was followed by subsequent appointment/extension for the period specified in the order of appointment/extension on the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter. One of the conditions contained in the appointment letter was that the appointment could be terminated on one month's notice on either side. However, the expression used in the order of appointment was "on re-employment basis". The appellant made representation seeking regularization of his services, but, vide letter dated 31st August, 2006 while regularizing his service till that date, the respondent simultaneously terminated his services with effect from that very date. His request for appointment as Constable was rejected vide letter dated 31st September, 2006 on the ground that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for the said post.

2. Being aggrieved from termination of his services, the appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 17436/2006. The said petition having been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 30th May, 2009, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

3. It is not in dispute that at the time the appellant was engaged/appointed for the first time, the recruitment rules did not provide for recruitment by way of direct appointment. The rules provided for appointment only by transfer/transfer on deputation. Therefore, as per the recruitment rules the appellant was not eligible for appointment to the post on which he was engaged on contractual basis.

4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that though initially the appellant was appointed on contractual basis, later on the mode of appointment was altered from contractual basis to re-employment basis. We have perused the appointment/extension orders issued to the appellant from time to time. It is evident from a perusal of these orders that despite use of the expression "on re- employment basis", the engagement of the appellant continued to be on contractual basis, since a particular term of appointment/extension was fixed in the orders whereby his services were extended from time to time. In case of re-employment, there can be no question of any particular terms of employment/engagement being stipulated in the appointment order, since the regular employment has to expire on the date of superannuation as prescribed in the rules. Therefore, the use of expression "on re-employment basis" was nothing but a misnomer in the appointment/extension orders issued to the appellant from time to time. More importantly, since the recruitment rules envisaged appointment only on transfer/transfer on deputation basis there can be no question of re-employment till the prescribed date of superannuation.

5. Since the appointment of the appellant was on contractual basis, and even otherwise he was not eligible for regular appointment, no legal right accrued to him to continue to occupy the post of a Constable after the terms stipulated in the order of appointment/engagement expired on 31st August, 2006 and the respondent was entitled, in law, to dispense with his services with effect from that date.

6. In Vidyavardhaka Sangha and Anr. v. Y.D. Deshpande and Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 482, the Supreme Court observed that the appointment made on probation/ad hoc basis for a specific period of time comes to an end by efflux of time and the person holding s