ANU JAMES Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue agitated in these Writ Appeals is with respect to the continuance of persons employed on contract. Specifically the employment was on contract, after a due selection process. The period was initially extended, but later, terminated for appointing fresh hands, again on contract. The writ petition was filed claiming benefit of the judgment in Muhammed Abdul Kadir v. DGP Assam [(2009)6 SCC 611)] and State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others [(1992) 4 SCC 118]. The learned Single Judge declined the prayer of the petitioners.

(2.) We find that another Division Bench (Noorjihan A. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors . () had considered similar issue agitated on the strength of the cited decisions and held against the contract employees. It was held that the Government has the duty as a welfare State to enable opportunities for employment, especially on contract, to be distributed among the maximum number of people. The dictum therein squarely applies in the above case also. It was also found the dictum of Piara Singh only applies when a contract or temprary appointment is made to a regular post, pending appointment of a regular hand.

(3.) We also notice B.Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. and others [(2006)11 SCC 731). Therein also issue with respect to appointment on contract was considered and it was held that it is in the exclusive domain of the Government to decide the nature of the appointment made. The period for such contract was also held to be one to be prescribed by the Government, which cannot be interfered with by the Courts. Even if, the period is not prescribed there is an implicit limit on the tenure was the declaration made. In such circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.