Interim orders should not effectively grant final relief and must adhere to procedural guidelines for contract renewals, ensuring fairness in performance appraisals.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 by respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(C)No.28072 of 2024, challenging the interim order dated 6.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge permitting respondents 1 and 2 herein to continue in the post of Overseer and IT Assistant respectively in the 1^st appellant-Vandiperiyar Grama Panchayat, till the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat produces the copy of the letter dated 19.07.2024 referred to in Ext.P11 proceedings dated 01.08.2024 of the 2^nd appellant Secretary of Vandiperiyar Grama Panchayath as well as the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No.2 of 2024, extending that interim order until further orders.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to set aside Ext. P11 to the extent it terminates service of the petitioners;

ii) Call for the records leading to issuance of Ext. P10 and set aside the same to the extent of awarding marks to the petitioners by issuing a writ of certiorari;

iii) Declare that appointment and renewal of employment contracts shall be based on the merits of the candidates and not the political colour of the flags they are supporting;

iv) Declare that a temporary hand appointed through a regular selection process cannot be replaced by another set of temporary hands;

v) Issue writ of mandamus, any other order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 6 to renew the contract of the petitioners;

vi) Issue writ of mandamus, any other order or direction commanding the 6^th respondent to disburse the pending salary of the petitioners forthwith;

vii) Issue any other writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;

viii) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with translation of the documents produced in vernacular language;

ix) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash Ext.P17.

x) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash Ext.P16

xi) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to set aside Exts.P5 and P6 to the extent it gives decisive powers to the office bearers of the Local Self Government, which tends to corruption.

xii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to set aside Exts.P5 and P6 to the extent it is ultra vires to the MGNREGA Act, 2005.”

3. According to respondents 1 and 2, they have been working as Overseer and I.T.Assistant respectively at Vandiperiyar Grama Panchayat under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (‘Scheme’ for short), on a contract basis since 2013 and 2012 respectively. Their contract period ended on 31.07.2024. When certain Local Self Government Institutions attempted to make fresh appointments without renewing the contracts of eligible existing employees, the Government issued Exts.P4 and P5 orders dated 22.07.2024 and 29.06.2024 respectively and Ext.P6 circular dated 02.07.2024, providing guidelines for the renewal of contract with the employees following a performance appraisal. Accordingly, prior to the expiration of the period of the contract, the performance evaluation of respondents 1 and 2 was done by a duly constituted appraisal committee. 1^st respondent secured 32.82% and 2^nd respondent secured 33.06% of score in the performance appraisal which was below the prescribed minimum of 50% required for contract renewal. As per Ext.P10 order dated 31.07.2024, the District Programme Co- ordinator of the Scheme acting on the report of the appraisal committee decided not to renew the contracts of the employees who have not secured minimum 50% of the score. Consequent to the same, the 2^nd appellant issued Ext.P11 order dated 01.08.2024 not to renew the contract period of respondents 1 and 2. Challenging Exts. P10 and P11, respondents 1 and 2 filed W.P.(C) No.28072 of 202