Contractual employees are entitled to a notice with regard to the unsatisfactory nature of their service and their services could have been terminated only on a finding being rendered on the same.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :

“i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P19 as unjust, arbitrary and illegal,

ii. To declare that the petitioners are entitled to be continued in service as Attender and Part Time Sweeper respectively at the Ayush NHM Homeopathic Dispensary, Mananthavady Municipality;

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 5, 6 and 7 to pass orders permitting the petitioners to continue in service as Attender and Part Time Sweeper respectively at the Ayush NHM Homeopathic Dispensary, Mananthavady Municipality;

iv. issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 5, 6 and 7 to refrain from inducting fresh hands in the post of Attender and Part Time Sweeper at the Ayush NHM Homeopathic Dispensary, Mananthavady Municipality.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned DSGI, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 at considerable length.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed as Attender and Part-Time Sweeper in the Ayush NHM Homeo Dispensary, Mananthavady. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they were appointed after a due selection process and were not backdoor entrants. It is submitted that orders had been issued by the Government as evidenced by Exhibit P3 to the effect that appointments made on contract basis to a particular project or scheme does not have to be discontinued on the basis of general orders for discontinuance of temporary employees. It is submitted that later Government Orders have been issued with regard to continuance of temporary employees and contract appointees during the Covid period. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court and an attempt was made to terminate their services and Exhibit P11 judgment was rendered directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue without prejudice to the right of the Municipality to engage contract employees after paper publication and inviting applications etc. It is submitted that an appeal was preferred by the petitioners and Exhibit P12 judgment was rendered directing that in case the petitioners submit a representation before the Director of Urban Affairs, the same shall be considered with notice to the Municipality as well. The applicability of the Government Orders relied on by the petitioner was also directed to be considered. It is submitted that thereafter, the impugned order has been passed terminating the services of the petitioners on the ground that the Government Orders relied on by the petitioners are not applicable in the instant case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is absolutely no consideration of the specific contentions raised by the petitioners that they were also appointed after a due selection process and that there is no reason for terminating their appointments except the whimes and fancies of the employer. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies on Exhibit P20 judgment of this Court and contends that since the petitioners had been continuing from 2010 and 2016 onwards after undergoing a due selection process, the direction to terminate their services only to replace them with similarly situated employees is vitiated.

5. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 5th respondent. It is contended that the petitioners had approached this Court in an earlier round of litigation and that the direction in Exhibit P12 was to consider whether the Government Orders relied on by them are applicable in their case. It is submitted that after following the directions contained in Exhibit P12, the Director had come to the conclusion that the Government Orders relied on are not applicable to the petitioners and that therefore they are not entitled to continue in service. It is contended that the petitioners are only contractual employees an