The termination of services with the closure of specific schemes, rejection of the plea for payment of salary during the intervening period, and dismissal of the maintainability plea based on the entity's status as an authority under article 12 of the Constitution of India.

1. The petitioners who were admittedly appointed under particular schemes being aggrieved by discontinuation of their services, have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court praying for absorbing them under any other schemes/projects. Both the writ petitions being based on, more or less, same set of facts and the relief prayed for being the same, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For determining the issue raised in the writ petitions, the respective pleadings of the parties in the first writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 10267/03, are discussed below. Be it stated here that learned counsel for the parties have also extensively argued on the basis of the facts in the said writ petition.

3. The petitioner was first appointed as Co-operative Education Instructor under the respondent No. 2 in the year 1979. There is no dispute that he was so appointed under a particular scheme implementation of which was vested with the respondent No. 2. The petitioner served in the aforesaid capacity in different offices. By Annexure-D letter dated 28/29.5.1985, the petitioner was intimated that his services under the scheme being only up to 31.3.1985, there was no question of continuation of his service beyond that. The letter was written to the petitioner in reference to certain programmes furnished by the petitioner in respect of the scheme for the months of April, May and June 1985.

4. When the matter rested, thus, by inter departmental correspondence/ letter dated 19.6.1985, launching of another scheme called "Education-cum-Development Programme for Handloom Co-operatives by NCUI" during seventh five year plan was intimated. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was offered the post of Co-operative Education Instructor by memo dated 19/20.11.1985. The petitioner joined as such and by his letter dated 22.1.1986 made a request for payment of salary for the intervening period, treating his service to be continuous. The letter dated 22.1.1986 was followed by further letters making request for payment of arrear salary.

5. By Annexure-I letter dated 31.1.1986, the petitioner was informed that since the earlier scheme/programme was only up to 31.3.1985 there was no question of continuation of service of the petitioner beyond that and consequently till his fresh appointment by Annexure-F memorandum dated 19/20.11.1985, payment of salary to the petitioner did not arise.

6. The petitioner served in different offices. However, by Annexure-O Office Memorandum dated 3.2.2003, the services of the petitioner was discontinued with immediate effect. The grounds for such discontinuation of service was the discontinuation of grants in aid by the Central Government for operating the scheme/programme. As a consequence of such discontinuation of the grants in aid, the project/ unit was closed.

7. After discontinuation of the service of the petitioner by the aforesaid order dated 3.2.2003, the petitioner made Annexure-P representation dated 10.2.2003 praying for absorption/continuation of his service under any other scheme/programme. However, the same did not yield any result.

8. By Annexure-S letter dated 26.5.2003, the petitioner, in reference to his representations, was advised to appear before the selection committee for interview for the post of Co-operative Education Instructor. According to the petitioner although he was selected for the post, but he was not appointed on the ground of his ineligibility due to language problem. However, the recommendation was made by the selection committee to the authorities of the respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in any other programme/scheme where there would be no language problem for the petitioner. It was on that basis, the petitioner approached this court by filing the writ petition which was preceded by his representations dated 12.8.2003 and 29.9.2003 (Annexures- T and U) respectively praying for release of his gratuity, etc.

9. The res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document