ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

“29.(b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or appropriate writ, order or direction to hold the action of the Respondent authorities not to reappoint them since the expiry of the contract of service on 31-03-2017 as illegal and quash and set aside the termination of the petitioners by the Respondent authorities with effect from as per the letters kept at Annexure-C collectively and direct the authorities to reappoint them at their respective posts of Technical Resources Person which they have been holding continuously since their initial appointment as shown in the Annexure A.

(c) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to re-appoint the petitioners forthwith and restore the petitioners to the services they were holding up to 31-03-2017 and direct the authorities not to terminate the service of the petitioners in their respective posts of Engineer, Technical Resource Person (TRP) on contractual basis without giving any artificial brake till the regularly selected candidates are made available.”

2. As the prayers made in the writ petition will suggest that the petitioners are seeking mandamus or any writ of certiorari or appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to reinstate them in service, and declaring the action of the respondent authorities of not re-appointing them, after a contract of service was over on 31.03.2017, as illegal.

3. The established facts from the writ petition are that the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 were appointed on 16.08.2011, 27.07.2015, 12.02.2010, 03.05.2010 and 24.01.2012 respectively. It is not disputed that all the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis and their contracts were extended from time to time, after expiry of such contracts. They were appointed in the scheme or project known as “Sarva Siksha Abhiyan” run by the State authorities. After the last contract, which got over in the year 2017, more particularly on 31.03.2017, the same was not extended and as a consequence, the services of the petitioners were terminated.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Thomas appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the action of the respondent authorities of not extending the contracts of the petitioners is illegal since they were continued for so many years on contractual basis and the contracts were also renewed hence, the respondent authorities may be directed to reappoint them. Reliance is placed by the learned advocate Mr.Thomas on the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 28.06.2019 passed in a group of petitions being Special Civil Application No.13505 of 2018 and allied matters. Learned advocate Mr.Thomas, while placing reliance on the order dated 24.11.2021 / 07.12.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.15053 of 2019 and allied matter has submitted that since the contracts of the petitioners were not renewed on the ground that work of the petitioners were unsatisfactory, such action can be said to be stigmatic and hence, as per the aforesaid order passed in Special Civil Application No.15053 of 2019 and allied matter, their termination is required to be set aside. Reliance is also placed by the learned advocate Mr.Thomas on the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of GRIDCO Limited Vs. Sadananda Dolo, (2011) 15 S.C.C. 16 and has submitted that the Court can always examine the termination of the contractual employee even when one of the contracting parties happened to be the State.

5. No further submissions are advanced by the learned advocate Mr.Thomas.

6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Meet Shah appearing for the respondent authorities has submitted that all the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis as per the conditions envisaged in their appointment orders. He has invited attention of this Court to the conditions attached to the appointment orders of the