Judgment : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk from the date his junior has been regularized i.e. June, 2013 with all consequential beneftts of pay, seniority, arrears, etc.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as a Data Entry Operator, on contractual basis, in the year 2010, in terms of Annexure P-1, in Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Lucknow, deemed University. He continued to serve as such till he was sent to the post of Lower Division Clerk in Ved Vyasa Campus, Garli, HP purely on adhoc basis vide Annexure P-5 on 15.02.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that whereas persons junior to him have been regularized as Lower Division Clerk in the month of June, 2013, his services have not been regularized. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in light of the fact that the principal employer of the petitioner was the same, the petitioner should have been given the benefit of services rendered by him at Lucknow Campus of the respondent University and denial thereof by refusing regularization to the petitioner alongwith other incumbents in the month of June, 2013, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents took the Court through the reply filed by the respondents and submitted that the engagement of the petitioner at Garli campus was not in continuation to his earlier engagement at Lucknow campus. He submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Data Entry Operator at Lucknow Campus, on contract basis, whereas he was engaged vide Annexure P-5, in Ved Vyasa Campus, Garli, on adhoc basis, not as Data Entry Operator but as a Lower Division Clerk. Learned Senior Panel Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was allowed to continue till the expiry of his term, i.e. 31st July, 2014 and thereafter, as the services of the petitioner were no more required, his services were dispensed with. He submitted that none engaged after the petitioner at Garli Campus as a Lower Division Clerk stood regularized and persons, who were regularized, were serving earlier and were entitled for regularization. 5. He submitted that none engaged after the petitioner at Garli Campus as a Lower Division Clerk stood regularized and persons, who were regularized, were serving earlier and were entitled for regularization. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrates that initially in terms of Annexure P-1, the petitioner was appointed as a Data Entry Operator, on contract basis, in Lucknow campus of the respondent University. Thereafter, extensions were given to him as Data Entry Operator and the last extension in terms of P-4 was from 12.10.2011 to 06.01.2012. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-5, the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as a Lower Division Clerk in Ved Vyasa Campus, Garli, for a period of one year only. Now, whereas the engagement of the petitioner as a Data Entry Operator in the Lucknow campus of the respondent-University was on a consolidated salary of Rs.7,000/- per month, the offer of engagement of the petitioner at Garli campus, on adhoc basis as Lower Division Clerk was in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200+1900 Grade Pay + usual allowances. 7. The above demonstrates that the post which was offered to the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 was completely different from the one against which he was working in the Lucknow campus of the respondent-University and even the terms of the engagement were different. 8. Not only this, it has not been refuted by the petitioner that indeed after the expiry of the term of the petitioner in the year 2014, his services stood dispensed with. It could not be demonstrated by the petitioner that after his engagement as a Lower Division Clerk, on adhoc basis, at Garli Campus vide office order dated 15.02.2012, another Lower Division Clerk was appointed in Garli Campus and was regularized in June, 2013. 9. Therefore, in the backdrop of the above facts, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the appointment offer of the petitioner at Garli Campus was totally different and distinct from the offer that was there at Lucknow Campus of the University and the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of services rendered by him at Lucknow campus for the purpose of regularization etc. 10. 10. Otherwise also, as services of the petitioner stood dispensed with in the year 2014 and there is no challenge thereto in this petition, therefore, also this petition has lost its efficacy and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.