Sujoy Paul, J.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 1.12.2011 (Annexure P/1) whereby services of the petitioners were terminated by holding that their services were not satisfactory on the basis of Performance Evaluation Report.

2. Shri Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, criticized the said order by contending that the order is stigmatic and punitive in nature. He submits that the matter is squarely covered by the order passed by Indore Bench in W.P. No. 1510/2005(s) (Jitendra v. State of M.P.) decided on 9.07.2008. By taking this court to various paragraphs of the said order, it is submitted that such punitive order may be set aside.

3. Prayer is opposed by Shri Santosh Yadav, PL for the respondents/state by contending that the order is simpliciter in nature. The petitioners being contractual employees, have no right to continue in employment. The termination order is in consonance with the contract of employment. He submits that the judgment of Jitendra (supra) has no application in the present case.

4. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties at l