JUDGMENT :

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.

1. These writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law, hence, they are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Brief factual matrix giving rise to these writ petitions are as follows:

Re: WPA/39/2022

3. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in the local newspaper on 28th July, 2010 by Andaman Public Works Department (APWD) for filling up the post of Junior Engineers, the petitioners participated in the selection process comprising of a written test and interview.

4. Petitioners were successful in the selection process and were empanelled but were not employed in the APWD. On the other hand, by an offer letter dated 21st November, 2011 APWD proposed to engage them as engineers in the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) on a consolidated pay of Rs.15,000/- per month for a period of eleven months.

5. Pursuant thereto petitioners were engaged in various PRIs on a contractual basis at a consolidated remuneration for eleven months. Since then, petitioners are serving as Junior Engineers in various PRIs on a contractual basis for more than a decade.

Re: WPA/40/2022

6. Pursuant to a Press Note issued on December 12, 2011 the Andaman and Nicobar Administration invited applications for filling up of the post of Surveyor, writ petitioner had applied and participated in the selection process comprising of written examination and interview. He was successful and was empanelled.

7. On 11th November, 2011 a decision was taken by the Zilla Parishad to appoint Junior Engineers and Surveyor on a contractual basis and accordingly request was made to APWD to furnish names of candidates for contractual employment. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was requested to appear before a Selection Committee for interview and was duly appointed on contractual basis as Surveyor in the Zilla Parishad on a consolidated monthly pay for a period of eleven months. Petitioner is still continuing to serve in such capacity for more than a decade.

Re: WPA/90/2022

8. On 25th May, 2011, a decision was taken to appoint Junior Engineers on contractual basis at a consolidated monthly salary for eleven months in PRIs. Pursuant thereto, petitioners participated in walk-in-Interviews and had been appointed on various dates and are working as Junior Engineers in PRIs. Petitioner nos.1 to 4 have been working since August, 2013, petitioner nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9 since 2017 and petitioner no.8 has been working on a contractual basis since 2015.

ARGUMENTS AT THE BAR:

9. Common grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that they had been appointed through a fair and open selection process to substantive posts and have been continuously working on a contractual basis for a considerable period of time save and except artificial breaks.

10. Relying on paragraph 53 in State of Kartanaka vs. Uma Devi,  (2006) 4 SCC1 and other authorities, Ms. Mitra and Mr. Ahammed vehemently argue that the petitioners are entitled to be regularised and paid salary equal to permanent employees discharging similar duties under the PRIs.

11. On the other hand, Mr. Chakraborty contends the writ petitions are not maintainable and the grievance of the petitioners, if any, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, he contends petitioners had not been appointed against substantive posts but were appointed merely on contractual basis to render services to PRIs and are not entitled to the relief prayed for.

FINDING WITH REASONS:

A. Maintainability

12. With regard to the issue of maintainability, I note PRIs concerned had issued letters of appointments to the petitioner. Hence, they were appointed on a contractual basis in the service of the PRIs and not the Administration.

13. PRIs are distinct and independent from A & N Administration and any plea for regularisation in the service of the said PRIs cannot be said to be a ‘service matter’ relating to the service of the union falling within t