RESMI R S Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are working in different posts in the District Child Protection Units in various districts in the State, challenge the move to terminate their services in order to induct another set of contract employees. It is contended that the petitioners were appointed after a due process of selection consisting of written test and interview and had been performing their duties without complaint. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Muhammed Abdul Kadir v. DGP Assam, 2009 6 SCC 611, the petitioners contend that they are entitled to continue in the respective posts as long as the scheme continues. Reliance is also placed on judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and Others, 1992 4 SCC 118, to contend that one set of contract employees cannot be replaced with another set of employees engaged on the very same terms. It is contended that the scheme specifically provides for contract appointments and that as such, the petitioners who have gained long years of experience are liable to be continued in service in the best interests of the scheme as well. It is stated that it is not in dispute that the scheme continues and that the services of the petitioners are necessary in the best interests of carrying out the scheme successfully. It is contended that in identical cases, other High Courts have directed the retention of the contract employees as long as the scheme continues.

(2.) A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the State Government. Relevant extracts of the Integrated Child Protection Scheme is produced along with the Counter affidavit as Ext.R1(a). Extracts from the implementation guidelines are produced as Ext.R1(b). It is stated that the appointments under the scheme are specifically contractual in nature. It is stated that clause 3 of R1(a) specifically provides that contractual staff are to be appointed at State and District levels with discretion to the States to appoint staff on permanent basis or on higher salaries than provided in the scheme, for which the State will have to bear the extra expenditure incurred. Clause 3.4 provides that every personnel shall have a contract of three years extendable by two years on the basis of performance appraisal reports. It is stated that review of performance shall be undertaken every year at State level.

(3.) Ext.R1(B) implementation guidelines specifies the rationale for recruiting staff on contractual basis and states that a conscious decision had been taken that the appointments shall be on contractual basis. The reasons stated are as follows: