SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
D. K. SINGH, J.
Ramakrishnan K. M., S/o P. Chandu Nambiar - Appellant 
Versus 
Union Of India - Respondents
 WP(C) No. 7976 of 2024
Decided on : 17-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. T.T.MUHAMOOD JOE KALLIATH A.RENJIT GOKUL R.NAIR NIKHILA.P RIYA MERIN BENCYKUTTY ANSALAM N.X.
For the Respondent: BY ADV. KIRAN M.S. DAYA SINDHU SREEHARI-CGC, PARVATHY KOTTOL-G

IMPORTANT POINT
The performance appraisal of Ombudsman is mandatory for extending tenure beyond two years, and termination without appraisal is unlawful.

Headnote:

(A) National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 - Section 27 - Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme - Guidelines dated 20.03.2023 - Appointment and tenure of Ombudsman - The Ombudsman is to be appointed for a tenure of two years, extendable based on performance appraisal, which is mandatory. The State Government cannot terminate the Ombudsman without conducting a performance appraisal. (Paras 5 , 8 , 9 )

(B) Performance Appraisal - The performance appraisal is essential for extending the tenure of the Ombudsman beyond the initial two years, and the State Government must adhere to this requirement. (Paras 6 , 9 )

Facts of the case:

The petitioners, appointed as Ombudsman under the Scheme, challenged the State Government's decision to proceed with new appointments without completing their performance appraisal. The revised guidelines issued in 2023 clarified the tenure and appraisal process.

Findings of Court:

The court held that the performance appraisal is mandatory and that the petitioners should be allowed to continue if found satisfactory.

Issues: The main issues were whether the performance appraisal is mandatory for extending the Ombudsman,s tenure and the legality of the State Government's actions regarding new appointments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the language of the guidelines mandates a performance appraisal for extending the Ombudsman,s tenure, and the State Government cannot terminate without this appraisal.

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT :

(D.K. SINGH, J.)

1. The petitioners are working as Ombudsman in the nature of pro bono public service under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme” for short). The said Scheme is fully funded by the Central Government which aims to generate and provide employment in rural areas of the Country. The Scheme envisages the appointment of Ombudsman under Section 27 of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. The Central Government has issued instructions for appointment and continuation of the Ombudsman on 07.09.2009 in Exhibit P-2.

2. The appointment of Ombudsman under the Scheme is to be made by the recommendations of the Selection Committee consisting of Chief Secretary of the State Government as Chairperson, Representative of Union Ministry of Rural Development as Member, Eminent Civil Society Person nominated by Union Ministry of Rural Development as a member and Secretary, State Nodal Department as Member Convenor. The Ombudsman selected by the Selection Committee is to be appointed for a tenure of two years extendable by one year based on performance appraisal or till the incumbent attains the age of 65 whichever is earlier. It further provided that there shall be no re-appointment. The performance appraisal is made by the Selection Committee and a copy of the performance appraisal report is to be furnished to the State Employment Guarantee Council.

3. On unsatisfactory performance, the Ombudsman may be removed by the State Government on the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

4. The petitioners were appointed as Ombudsman for a period of two years as per the Scheme and Instruction on Ombudsman. The Selection Committee undertook to evaluate the performance of these candidates but without completing the performance appraisal, the process of selection of new appointments of Ombudsman has been undertaken by the Selection Committee.

5. The revised guidelines have been issued in the year 2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Rural Development, Mahatma Gandhi NREGA Division on 20.03.2023. Clause 2.2.9 of the said guidelines provides as under;

2.2.9 The Ombudsman shall be appointed for tenure of 2 (two) years extendable not more than twice by one year each based on a performance appraisal process or till the incumbent attains the age of 68 (sixty eight) years, whichever is earlier. There shall be no reappointment.”

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no ‘separate statement’ and only ‘shall’ has been used in the single sentence which means that the ‘tenure of the Ombudsman is for a period of two years and it shall be extendable by one year each based on the performance appraisal’. The submission is that the language of Clause 2.2.9 of the guidelines dated 20.03.2023 mandates for conducting the performance appraisal and only if in the performance appraisal some person working as Ombudsman has not been found fit for continuation, then only the tenure shall not be extended.

7. Ms. K. R. Deepa, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that it is the discretion of the State Government to extend the engagement of the Ombudsman after an initial period of two years. The State Government is not bound to extend and carry out performance appraisal. However, if the State Government decides to extend the period beyond two years, then the performance appraisal has to be done.

8. I have considered the submissions. The Court is required to give correct construction to the language employed in Clause 2.2.9 of the guidelines dated 20.03.203 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development. The said Clause has already been extracted above. The sentence; “The Ombudsman shall be appointed for tenure of 2 (two) years extendable not more than twice by one year each based on a performance appraisal process ………………..” is a ‘single sentence’. Only one verb ‘shall’ has been used in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top