S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 10.01.2014 in OA No.1016/2013. Their application for a direction to continue them in the respondents’ employment was dismissed by the said impugned order.

2. The applicants were aggrieved by the non-extension of their contractual appointment. They complain that the respondents’ action in discontinuing such contracts is contrary to the decision to appoint all contractual employees for one year at a time with annual renewal every year till the project existed. Contractual appointments could be discontinued for non-performance/under performance/abolition of the post. This was to be preceded by show-cause notice and in case no satisfactory response was received during the previous contract period, there could be termination of contract. The petitioners represented for continuation of their contracts but no decision was communicated to them. Their contracts thus expired on 31.03.2013. They have urged that there has been violation of the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointments letters and ignoring the cases of the applicants, respondents took a decision to conduct a meeting on 21.03.2013 for selection of contractual employees against the guidelines mentioned in their own letters and in disregard of the Financial Budget decision without any justification. No justification was given for discontinuing their contracts. The petitioners had also relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.5269/2012, dated 21.03.2012 in similar circumstances.

3. The respondents initially appointed persons (including the petitioners) with approval of the Central Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for hiring the services of Data Entry Operators and Secretariat Assistants on purely contractual basis for the World Bank/GFATM assisted Revised Nation T.B. Control Programme (RNTCP) project at the Central T.B. Division. In terms of the office Memorandum dated 23.10.2002, respondents issued an appointment letter in favour of the first petitioner with certain stipulations, including that the contract could be terminated by either side on fifteen days’ notice. The basis of the applicants’ initial contractual appointment was to handle the work under the said programme for one year. The petitioners’ contracts were extended by the competent authority from time to time for a further period of one year. The extension letters contained conditions of contractual engagement such as that they would be treated as Non-Official and would be neither entitled to any other service benefit of the Central Government nor could claim regularization. The contractual appointment was subject to the execution of an Agreement between the CTD and the employee as per the TOR. This was a full time engagement and the contract could be terminated by either side at fifteen days’ notice. Reliance was placed on the Budget and Financial Management too, to say that the condition for appointing contractual staff was a time period of one year at a time, with annual renewal every year to be done till the project existed. It was alleged by the Petitioners that during transition from RNTCP II to RNTCP 2012-2017, all contractual staff shifted on the post on new salary norms, retaining the actual increments amount received after the last revision of salaries. The respondents issued the order dated 04.01.2010, consequent upon approval of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs to the proposal of RCC (GFATM) assisted RNTCP, with financial norms from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2015.

4. The Petitioners secured the information under RTI Act, 2005 that two new persons, namely Mr. Zubar and Mrs. Gyan Prakash were posted as Executive Assistant on 28.04.2011 and that these two contractual staff were hired through the agency of DGHS/Ministry because of which two contractual employees had lost their