The court ruled that contractual employees for specific projects lack a right to regularization upon project completion, reinforcing employer discretion in employment terms.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas seeks permission to delete the private respondents. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The private respondents stand deleted from the cause-title.

2. ADMIT. Mr.Raj Tanna, learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw, appearing for respondents No.3 to 7 waive service of notice of admission. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today.

3. The captioned group of LPAs is directed against the common oral judgment dated 12.06.2025 rendered in Special Civil Application No.13821 of 2015 and allied matters, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the writ petitions filed by the appellants-original the petitioners seeking regularization of their services and not to terminate them from their employment, without following the procedure which is being followed in case of permanent employees.

BRIEF FACTS :

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

4.1 It is the case of the appellants-original petitioners that the respondent being Gujarat State Watershed Management Agency (for short “GSWMA”) is the Nodal Agency for the implementation of Integrated Watershed Management Program (for short “IWMP") in the State and its mandate includes planning for development of all the watersheds of the State either directly or indirectly. The entire project is undertaken under the aegis of the Central Government.

4.2 The respondent is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The GSWMA is working at the State level, whereas the District Watershed Development Unit (for short “DWDU”) is working at the District level. The organizational structure and various posts have been described in its Human Resource Manual. The respondent notified the recruitment process by way of different methods in its Human Resources Manual which is duly produced at Annexure-A (page Nos.30 to 77), wherein different methods of recruitment have been prescribed.

4.3 In the instant recruitment, the process envisaged as Method-2 was applied. From among different methods, the Method-2 is most competitive and transparent. The said Method-2 i.e. open advertisement followed by Proficiency Test, the same figures at Page No.44. Paragraph Nos.3.4.2 to 3.7 in the Human Resource Manual duly produced at Annexure-A.

4.4 Thus, all the present appellants are appointed in a scheme of Watershed Project initiated by the Central Government and being implemented by the respective State Governments. Accordingly, they were appointed in view of the Human Resources Manual issued by the Gujarat Watershed Agency and that fact is not disputed by the appellant.

5. It appears that in the year 2014, apprehending termination, the appellants approached this Court by way of filing petitions, in which the respondents were directed to maintain status-quo. Accordingly, they have continued for all these years. It is also noticed by us that despite the project having been closed, in cases of some of the appellants, they were accommodated in some other scheme on deputation, as the respondents were facing with the status-quo order. We have also perused the communication in this regard, wherein the respondents - authorities have clarified that such employees - appellants are accommodated in view of the status-quo order and it is further clarified that appropriate application may be filed before the Court seeking permission to terminate their services. In the captioned writ petitions, it is noticed by us that various Civil Applications for vacating the interim relief has been filed by the State authorities; the same were also disposed of along with the captioned writ petitions.

6. Learned Single Judge has refused to accept the prayers made in the captioned writ petitions, which has given rise to the present group of LPAs.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-EMPLOYEES :

7. Learned advocate