Contractual employees cannot claim regularization or a regular pay scale unless stipulated in their contract, and performance assessments are necessary for contract renewal.

JUDGMENT :

(A.S. SUPEHIA, J.)

1. Admit. Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned AGP waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent no.1 – State, Mr. Dholakia, learned advocate and Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters are heard finally today. The Letters Patent Appeals stem-out of the judgment dated 13^th February, 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petitions, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the present appellants, claiming the benefits of regularization and also challenging the action of the respondents in terminating their services.

3. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, are not in dispute, which read as under:

3.1 The appellants-petitioners herein are appointed with the respondent no.2 for a period of three years pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspaper in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16^th November, 2010. Being aggrieved by the communication dated 11^th June, 2014 written by the respondent no.2 informing all the District Development Officers that the services of 300 employees will be availed only upto 31st July, 2014, they had filed the captioned writ petitions for the following reliefs :

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus by holding that the selection of the petitioners to their respective posts was a regular selection, after following the regular process of selection and that they are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their appointment and their services stood confirm on their satisfactorily clearing probation period and that their services cannot be terminated in any manner contrary to one by which services of a permanent employee can be terminated.

(C) Your Lordships may be issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of termination dated 11/06/2014 to terminate the services of the petitioners from 31/07/2014 passed by the respondent No.2 and further be pleased to regularize the service of the petitioners from the date of their appointment and further be pleased to give all consequential benefits, monitory and non-monitory inclusive of the full back wages.

(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the termination order dated 11/06/2014 passed by the respondent No.1 which is to come into the effect from 31/07/2014, as if the same is not passed, and to restrain them to terminate the service or to discontinue them from 31/07/2014 and further be pleased to grant the regular pay scale or at least may be given as per to the Government Resolution dated 16/11/2010.

(E) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and expedient may be granted.”

3.2 The respondent no.1 passed the Government Resolution dated 16^th November, 2010, by which the Scheme “Mission Mangalam” enforced by the respondent no.1 and also approved the organizational structure of the respondent no.2 by creating the following posts :-

(i) General Manager (State)

(ii) Project Manager (State)

(iii) District Livelihood Manager

(iv) Assistant Project Manager (District)

(v) Taluka Livelihood Manager

(vi) Assistant Project Manager (Taluka)

The respondent no.2 - Gujarat Livlihood Promotion Company Ltd. is a Company registered under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The recruitment and setup of the staff and employees is governed by Government Resolution dated 16^th November, 2010. The appellants, after undergoing the selection procedure, were appointed by the respondent no.2 by way of contract for the respective posts.

3.3 The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petitions, which has led to filing of