SOHAN LAL CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions, involving common question of law, are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners' contention is that under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme(NRGES), the respondents invited applications for the post of Programme Officer to effectively execute the scheme. Such appointment of Programme Officer was to be made on contractual basis at the level of Panchayat Samiti. For this, advertisement was published on 4.6.2008. The petitioners were eligible for the post and they applied for the post and ultimately, they were selected on the basis of merit and were given appointment. The petitioners continued to work at their respective places and, while they were working in service, were given training of induction course of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for Programme Officers held by Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj and Gramin Vikas Sansthan (State Institute of Rural Development). According to the petitioners, with the help of the petitioners, the project was carried so efficiently that the State of Rajasthan could reach to the position number one in the whole country in implementing NREGA. Though the appointment was on contract basis but it is clear from the circular dated 2.7.2009 that the post mentioned in the circular has been sanctioned upto 28.2.2010. It is clear from the circular dated 2.7.2009 that the post of Programme Officer can be filled in on the basis of contract or deputation and the Programme Officer is required to be appointed for Panchayat Samiti. It is also provided in the contract that the contract can be extended by mutual consent for a period of not more than one year at a time but will not in any case exceed five years in all or the date on which the plan scheme/project closes whichever is earlier. The persons engaged in this employment are also entitled to leave, medical reimbursement, gazetted and restricted holidays, they are required to seek permission to leave headquarter and are also entitled to travelling allowances etc. In sum and substance, according to the petitioner, the work though has been given as on contract basis but the contract is extend-able having the same privileges attached to the job with certainty, but the respondents suddenly terminated the contract and directed the petitioners to hand over the charge to the concerned authorities in the Panchayat Samiti. A copy of the order dated 1.9.2009 is annexed as Annex.8 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6644/09.

(3.) The petitioners are aggrieved against all such orders of termination of the contract on the ground that the scheme NREGA, 2005 was enacted with object and preamble to unemployed persons in the rural area and, by due process of selection, the petitioners have been selected and have been given appointment to the post and from the conditions of service, it is clear that their performance is required to be adjudged and the employees are required to follow the certain norms and further are entitled to certain benefits which are normally attached to the regular service in regular cadre and the term can be extended upto five years. The project has neither come to an end nor five years have completed, then the respondents have no right to terminate the services of the petitioners abruptly by merely taking a decision that the State has decided not to extend their contract. It is also submitted that it is clear from Annex.1 advertisement dated 4.6.2008 that the petitioners were selected for the post of Programme Officer and by prescribing the same qualifications as has been prescribed for Programme Officer in the advertisement dated 4.6.2008, the respondents invited applications for Assistant Programme Officers vide advertisement dated 2.9.2009, virtually asking the petitioners who are working as Programme Officer to accept the post of Assistant Programme Officer. Since this is nothing but asking the duly selected candidates to join on lower post. Therefore, the action of the respondents is highly unjust as well as arbitrary and contrary to the scheme.