cannot be interfered with by this Tribunal. However, from the details of the posts approved for the respondent institute vide Annexure-R12, it is seen that under Group-C, 10 posts of Assistant Gr.ll have been approved and so far no advertisements etc. appear to have been issued in this regard by the respondent institution. It is not in dispute that the applicants have been working in the respondent institution purely on contract basis from August 2011 (Applicant No.1). February, 2010(Applicant No.2) and May, 2013(Applicant No.3). It is clear that the appointments have been made on a contract basis and every year the contract has been renewed based on the requirements of the respondent institution. The respondent institution has every right to terminate the contract of the employees as and when the need for their services is over. The contract employees cannot claim for equal pay for equal work etc. and the same has already been dismissed by this Tribunal vide its orders in ΟΑ.Νο.793/2017 & 794/2017 dtd. 17.1.2018 in relation to the applicants No.4 & 5. As has been contended by the respondents, there is no specific post approved with respect to the post being held by the Applicants No.1,2,3 & 5. Only in the case of Applicant No.4, there is an approved post of Electronic 2 Engineer for which certain recruitment rules have been prescribed. The contention of the applicants No.4 & 5 for appointment to two posts of LAD Technician has also been dismissed in the above referred OAs by this Tribunal. As such, it is clear that all the applicants do not have any right to claim regularisation and the various cases cited by them do not support their contention inasmuch as the posts they are occupying are not sanctioned posts and they were not recruited in terms of wide publicity and based on a set of procedures as per rules. Therefore, the only direction we would like to give to the respondent institution is to consider, without any prejudice or bias, the qualifications of Applicants No.1,2 & 3 at the time when the
