Kerala High Court
Rajasree K.K vs State Of Kerala on 5 August, 2025
WA NO.202/2019 1
2025:KER:58155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO.202 OF 2019
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2018 IN WP(C)
NO.22402/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAJASREE.K.K
ACCOUNTANT-CUM-DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
AREEKODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
SMT.A.ARUNA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
SMT.K.C.AISHWARYA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
WA NO.202/2019 2
2025:KER:58155
2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER AND MISSION
DIRECTOR
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME, FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI,
T.C.26/1333(2), PANAVILA JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 AREEKODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM.
4 SECRETARY
AREEKODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM
5 THE BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER
AREEKODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM.
6 RAJITHA RAJAN
EFMS DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, PMAYG, AREACODE BLOCK
PANCHAYAT, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM -673 639
BY ADV.SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ, SC, AREACODE
BLOCK PANCHAYAT, MALAPPURAM
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.AASHIQUE AKTHAR HAJIIGOTHI, SC, AREEKODE
BLOCK PANCHAYAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.06.2025, THE COURT ON 05.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.202/2019 3
2025:KER:58155
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 05th day of August, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.12.2018 in W.P.(C) No.22402 of 2018 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C).
2. Appellant contends that she had been working as Accountant cum Data entry operator in the 3rd respondent Panchayat since 2016 and that before the same, she had worked in Pulpatta Grama Panchayat in the same post from 25.03.2008 till 09.01.2012. Her grievance is that the respondents had decided to induct fresh hands on a temporary basis by removing her from the said post. Terming such a decision as unjust, illegal and arbitrary and contending that she is entitled to continue in service till the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MNREG) Scheme continues in the 3rd respondent Panchayat, she had filed the W.P. (C) seeking the following prayers :
WA NO.202/2019 4
2025:KER:58155 "i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P7 to the extent to which it does not extend the term of service of petitioner as Accountant-
Cum-Data Entry Operator in the 3rd respondent Panchayat for inducting fresh hands on temporary basis as unjust, illegal and arbitrary;
ii) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to be terminated from service and that she is entitled to continue as AccountantCum-Data Entry Operator till MGNREGS continues.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service as Accountant -CumData Entry Operator in the 3rd respondent Panchayat;
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to pass orders permitting the petitioner to continue in service as Accountant-Cum-Data Entry Operator in the 3 rd respondent Panchayat;
v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to refrain from inducting fresh hands in the post of Accountant-Cum- Data Entry Operator on temporary basis;
vi) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the W.P. relying on the judgment dated 19.11.2018 in W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018 and holding that, given the direction to the respondents in the said judgment, there was no reason to interfere with the stand taken by the respondents. It was also held that the appellant, who has been WA NO.202/2019 5 2025:KER:58155 working on a contract basis, did not have any right to continue after 01.07.2018. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal had been filed.
4. Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate, for the appellant, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, Government Pleader and Sri.Aashique Akthar Hajiigothi, learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent Areekode Block Panchayat.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment militates against the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others [(1992) 4 SCC 118)] and in a catena of other cases, wherein it had been held that temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set of temporary hands. It is also contended that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the dictum laid down in W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018 is erroneous since the appointments under MGNREG scheme are appointments made under the MGNREG Act, 2005 and not under the provisions of KS & SSR. The State Rules cannot govern a scheme constituted by the Central Government, and MGNREG scheme is an all-India Scheme WA NO.202/2019 6 2025:KER:58155 applicable to all States in the country and provisions of Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR cannot be said to cover the appointment made in the scheme. The dictum laid down in Annexure 2 judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018 has no applicability since in the said case, the appointment concerned was neither made by the Panchayat nor after following a process of selection. However, in the case of the appellant, the appointment was made pursuant to due process of selection, including notification and interview. The learned counsel attempted to distinguish the dictum laid down in C.Latha v. State (1993 (2) KLJ 497), Vinod v. State of Kerala (1998 (1) KLT 607) and Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala (1998 (2) KLT 153) which have been relied on by the learned Judge in W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018 as not applicable to the case of the appellant. Pointing to the dictum laid down in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and others [(2007) 13 SCC 292], Manish Gupta and another v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others [2022 SCC Online SC 485] it is submitted that one ad hoc arrangement cannot be displaced by another ad hoc arrangement. The observation in Dr.Barinder Kaur v. Guru Nanak Dev University WA NO.202/2019 7 2025:KER:58155 [2015 SCC Online P & H 12156] that an employee appointed on a contract or ad hoc basis should continue till regular appointments are made, subject to his or her good performance, existence of work and fitness, is also pointed out in support of the contentions by the learned counsel. Placing reliance on the dictum laid down in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another v. Director General Police, Assam and others [(2009) 6 SCC 611] it is further contended that staff employed for a particular project or scheme, which is temporary comes to an end as and when the project or scheme is completed meaning thereby that the existence of posts in such a temporary scheme is coterminous with the scheme. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down in Abhinav Chaudhary and others v. Delhi Technological University and another (2015 SCC Online Del 6780) to contend that a person who is employed under the scheme has to continue the employment till the continuation of the scheme and such a person's services cannot come to an end/be terminated before the expiry of the scheme except of course on disciplinary grounds or unsatisfactory services or medical grounds or attaining the normal age of retirement.
WA NO.202/2019 8
2025:KER:58155
6. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 (Panchayat), that the appointments were made strictly by law and that the appellant was not an ad hoc or temporary employee. She was under a contractual temporary engagement, and since the period of engagement had expired, there was no question of replacing the appellant with another temporary employee, since she was no longer in engagement. It is contended that the services of the appellant had not been terminated, and since the period of contractual engagement had expired, it had become necessary to enter into further contractual engagements. Appellant is not entitled to claim extension of contract as a matter of right, and the rights of persons who are awaiting such engagement also have to be taken into consideration. It is thus contended that there is no cause or reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge, and the appeal is only to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Noorjahan A. and others v. State of Kerala and others (MANU/KE/0407/2020) wherein it had been held by this Court that upon expiry of the period of contract, if the appointing authority decides to go for fresh selection, such action cannot be WA NO.202/2019 9 2025:KER:58155 treated as illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory nor can it be seen as depriving the livelihood of the persons already employed who, with open eyes, took up a contractual employment for a specific period. It is also submitted that the SLP filed in challenge to the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1570 of 2018 and connected cases, Noorjahan A. (supra) has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.06.2020. It is thus prayed that the Writ Appeal may be dismissed.
7. We have heard both sides and have considered the contentions put forth. We have also perused the precedents relied on. As regards the contention that temporary employees are not liable to be replaced by another set of temporary employees and that they must be replaced only by regular employees, the said position is now indeed settled by a string of decisions. [See Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Sudheesh Kumar P.S. and others [(2023) SCC OnLine Ker 913)]. We note that in the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had relied on and followed the judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018. The said judgment had been confirmed in W.A.No.243 of 2019 vide WA NO.202/2019 10 2025:KER:58155 judgment dated 15.03.2019. It is after taking note of this affirmation that, in Noorjahan A. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"24. As we noticed, the terms of the Scheme provide for contractual appointment and the agreements entered into at the time of appointment clearly indicates the period. On expiry of the period of contract, if the appointing authority decides to go for fresh selection, such action cannot be treated as illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory nor can it be seen as depriving the livelihood of the persons already employed who, with open eyes, took up a contractual employment for a specific period. The rampant unemployment in the State has a direct nexus to the density of population and the growing literacy. The State while providing contractual employment has a duty to ensure that the benefit reaches the maximum of the unemployed without confining it to some. There is no contention that any backdoor entries are being made and regular selections are conducted even after the expiry of the contract period. All the appellants assert that they were selected by a transparent process and we do not perceive any reason to assume that the selections made on the termination of their contractual periods would be otherwise; on which allegation, if at all it arise, there are forums to agitate such grievance. We reiterate that the Scheme does not contemplate a regular appointment to posts concerned with its implementation at the grass root levels nor continuation of the appointees till the closure of the Scheme. The Scheme could extend for eternity, looking at the intention behind the enactment or be scrapped all of a sudden with a change in policy. Just as the shifting sands of time, welfare measures have a nebulous quality, which stands accentuated with the Scheme specifically providing for only contractual appointment." (emphasis supplied) The SLP filed challenging Noorjahan A. (supra) has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. We have noted the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant based on the dictum laid down in the State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das WA NO.202/2019 11 2025:KER:58155 [AIR 2019 SC 2331] that the dismissal of an SLP in limine simply implies that the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not considered worthy of examination for a reason which may be other than the merits of the case and that such in limine dismissal at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons does not constitute a declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. In the facts of the case at hand, we note as pointed out in Noorjahan A. (supra), that the relevant scheme does not contemplate a regular appointment to posts concerned with its implementation at the grassroots levels nor continuation of the appointees till the closure of the Scheme. Hence, the contentions put forth by the learned counsel based on Mohd. Abdul Kadir (supra), Abhinav Chaudhary (supra) have no applicability. It is trite that in the case of contractual appointments where a period of engagement is specified, on expiry of the period mentioned in the contract, if the appointing authority decides to go for fresh selection, such action cannot be treated as illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory. A person who has taken up contractual employment for a specific period cannot thus be heard to contend that she is not liable to be WA NO.202/2019 12 2025:KER:58155 terminated from service after the stipulated period. In light of the said unequivocal finding arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court, which squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the learned Single Judge had correctly declined the relief sought for. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl WA NO.202/2019 13 2025:KER:58155 APPENDIX OF WA 202/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.12.2018 ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.
13660 OF 2018 DATED 19.11.2018 ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.8.2018 IN W.A.NO.1570/2018 ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 01.12.2017 IN W.A.NO.1417/2017 ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.2.2018 IN DIARY NO.41387/2017 ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.2.2018 IN O.A.NO.2018/2016