Contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees unless their services are terminated for valid reasons such as unsatisfactory performance, de-sanctioning or end of the scheme or project or plan, or replacement by regularly selected candidates.

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following relief’s (prayer clause & facts of lead case has been taken into consideration) :-

"(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned illegal action on the part of respondent authorities in not extending the term of contractual engagement of petitioner beyond 21.10.2017 and thereby removing/terminating services of the petitioner from the post of Consultant-Water Quality, Communication and Capacity Development Unit (C.C.D.U), Water and Sanitation Support Organization W.S.S.O.), State Water and Sanitation Mission (S.W.S.M.), Rajasthan, Jaipur may kindly be declared illegal and accordingly be quashed and set aside.

(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may also kindly be directed to continue to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Consultant -Water Quality, Communication and Capacity Development Unit (C.C.D.U), Water and Sanitation Support Organization W.S.S.O.), State Water and Sanitation Mission (S.W.S.M.), Rajasthan, Jaipur till availability of regularly selected candidates or the said project is in operation.

(c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(d) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."

2. The petitioner underwent selection process and faced interview for being appointed on the post of Consultant in Communication and Capacity Development Unit (CCDU), State Water and Sanitation Mission, Rajasthan, Jaipur on contractual basis on a consolidated professional fee of Rs.30,000/- per month, which was mentioned in his appointment letter dated 05.7.2008 (Annex.4). The petitioner's service were utilized by CCDU under the control of Water and Sanitation Support Organization (WSSO). The contractual engagement of petitioner was extended from time to time by the respondents, however, due to internal change of set up of the State of Rajasthan, a tripartite memorandum of understanding was entered into between the State Water and Sanitation Mission (S.W.S.M.), Rajasthan; Indian Institute of Health Management Research (IIHMR) and UNICEF came to be terminated by the State Government w.e.f. 31.3.2010 and in place thereof the Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India under the Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission issued guidelines for implementation of National Rural Drinking Water Programme 2008-2012, whereby it was recommended to set up Water and Sanitation Support Organization (SWSM) to deal with the support activities. The changed set up resulted into re-appointment of the petitioner as Consultant, Water Quality in CCDU, WSSO, SWSM, Rajasthan, Jaipur on contract for a fee of Rs.40,000/- per month, the said order is Annex.9. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time. The extension of service was based upon performance, for which duly constituted Committee was constituted by the respondents. The respondents, however, took a decision that services of the petitioner shall be continued only upto 31.3.2018. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's service cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee as the original plan has been prepared/approved for the period 2011-2022 by the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India upto 2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mooli Devi Choudhary & ors. v. State of Rajasthan & ors., reported in RLW 2010(4) (Raj.) 3714, the relevant portion whereof of which reads as follows :

"41. Therefore, for these reasons, this Court is inclined to allow these writ petitions with aforesaid directions and following answers to the questions framed above.

Conclusions:

(i) Question No. 1 is answer