Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
P. Naveen Rao, J.
Boggadi Rama Chandra Reddy, s/o. B.Narayana Reddy and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department and others - Respondents
W.P.Nos. 27468, 27538, 35847, 26675, 26756, 26953, 27039, 27275, 27277, 27278, 27288, 27291, 27293, 27306, 27321, 27373, 27377, 27397, 27400, 27405, 27410, 27432, 27434, 27435, 27442, 27459, 27463, 27466, 27482, 27584, 27590, 27595, 27616, 27618, 27620, 27626, 27627, 27629, 27652, 27653, 27688, 27719, 27766, 27767, 27801, 27825, 27917, 27924, 27929, 27945, 27976, 27984, 27985, 27987, 27997, 28003, 28005, 28018, 28024, 28036, 28040, 28044, 28046, 28059, 28066, 28075, 28083, 28169, 28179, 28193, 28202, 28206, 28211, 28223, 28229, 28240, 28258, 28295, 28300, 28307, 28319, 28320, 28443, 28512, 28514, 28539, 28545, 28559, 28563, 28569, 28572, 28573, 28593, 28608, 28659, 28719, 28735, 28741, 28778, 28781, 28789, 28798, 28808, 28814, 28827, 28831, 28833, 28836, 28838, 28846, 28883, 28886, 28906, 28946, 28949, 28991, 28992, 29010, 29013, 29020, 29026, 29029, 29045, 29047, 29054, 29129, 29130, 29138, 29141, 29160, 29162, 29170, 29189, 29202, 29204, 29211, 29237, 29291, 29301, 29307, 29337, 29350, 29361, 29363, 29364, 29369, 29370, 29371, 29379, 29381, 29391, 29400, 29406, 29423, 29427, 29435, 29439, 29440, 29502, 29538, 29665, 29680, 29735, 29755, 29827, 29862, 29872, 29873, 29895, 29905, 29909, 29915, 29916, 29919, 29921, 29923, 29924, 29925, 29926, 29931, 29934, 29936, 29937, 29940, 29943, 29944, 29947, 29950, 29954, 29956, 29969, 29974, 29975, 29979, 29981, 29986, 29988, 29989, 29992, 29995, 30006, 30023, 30028, 30034, 30042, 30045, 30048, 30050, 30085, 30095, 30099, 30107, 30119, 30130, 30137, 30144, 30145, 30146, 30157, 30158, 30165, 30169, 30183, 30184, 30197, 30201, 30205, 30213, 30243, 30251, 30275, 30278, 30284, 30292, 30301, 30302, 30319, 30325, 30361, 30460, 30476, 30477, 30480, 30495, 30516, 30530, 30560, 30571, 30582, 30589, 30597, 30659, 30662, 30677, 30679, 30689, 30694, 30740, 30754, 30774, 30814, 30961, 31056, 31216, 31217, 31251, 31259, 31387, 31425, 31652, 31713, 31867, 31891, 31964, 32009, 32336, 32355, 32655, 32728, 33005, 33093, 33099, 33113, 33152, 33212, 33253, 33257, 33267, 33309, 33455, 33471, 33710, 33810, 33898, 34135, 34607, 34611, 34746, 35531, 35346, 31488, 36382, 37256, 37296, 12650, 37871, 38263, 38637, 38673, 38750, 38793 and 27656 of 2015
Decided On : 31-12-2015
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the writ petitions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on the contractual obligations and rights (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. claims of political motivation affecting employment (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. discussion on procedural irregularities (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. employment rights and constitutional protections (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. counterarguments regarding contract nature (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. arguments against performance evaluations (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. issues in performance assessments and target achievements (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. role of field assistants in the scheme (Para 40 , 41) |
| 10. court's examination of roles and guidelines (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 11. judicial review perspectives and public interest (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 12. assessment validity and performance tracking (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 13. conclusion on the contract's nature and judicial outcomes (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 14. statement of relevant legal principles (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 15. legal arguments concerning employer rights (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72) |
| 16. court’s analysis of appeal principles (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 17. final observations on administrative accountability (Para 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 18. court's recommendations for further action (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85) |
| 19. final legal conclusions and directives (Para 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93) |
ORDER :
P.Naveen Rao, J.
In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the termination /non renewal of their contract for a further period as Field Assistants under the National Rural Employment Generation Scheme on the ground that they have not achieved the performance targets fixed to them. Since the issue for consideration in all these writ petitions being same, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by common order.
2. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, Sri Vedula Srinivas, Sri V.Maheshwar Reddy, Sri Tadi Nageshwar Rao, Sri Mohana Rami Reddy, Sri Jagdishwar, Sri K.Srinivas, Sri Ch.Srinivas, Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, Sri N.Ashwatha Narayana, Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, Sri V.Surendra Reddy, Sri N Chandrashekar Reddy, Sri V.Surendra Reddy, Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, Sri P.V.V.Satyanarayana, Sri Syed Azmatullah, Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Sri Rama Rao Mavidi, Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, appearing for petitioners in respective writ petitions, Sri MSR Chandra Murthy, learned Special counsel representing Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), learned Advocate General and learned Government Pleader respectively and with their consent the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience the documents as filed in W.P.No.27538 of 2015 are reflected in the body of the order.
3. Leading the arguments on behalf of petitioners in the batch of writ petitions, learned senior counsel has taken through various provisions of the ‘National Rural Employment Generation Act, 2005’
(for short the ‘Act, 2005’), A.P. Rural Employment Generation Scheme (for short, ‘the Scheme’), various circulars, model form of contract and Field Assistants Human Resources Policy. Learned senior counsel, contended that right is vested in the able bodied persons to demand work and when such a demand is made, it is mandatory to provide work. The person who is interested to undertake work in the said manner has to enrol himself, obtain wage card and has to submit a demand for provision of work. He therefore contended that it is voluntary on the part of the individual to demand work and no person can force on the person concerned to seek work. The impugned circulars and resultant decision not to renew the contract of employment is based on illegal ground that the petitioners did not ensure enforcement of work from the able bodied persons and did not achieve the targets fixed f
The court ruled that non-renewal of contracts for Field Assistants is justified based on performance assessment, acknowledging the employer's right to assess suitability for renewal, but emphasized t....
Since the prayer to regularise the contractual service of the writ petitioners and to make them permanent on the establishment is rejected by learned Single Judge, limited benefit made available to t....
Contractual employees have no vested rights to employment continuity when the associated project is concluded, and termination is lawful if conducted per the contract terms.
The court upheld the contractual nature of the petitioners' services and found the appointment of the private agency to be in compliance with the NULM scheme.
Interim orders should not effectively grant final relief and must adhere to procedural guidelines for contract renewals, ensuring fairness in performance appraisals.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
