Temporary employees under a contractual agreement have no right to continuation beyond the specified contract period; their replacement is lawful upon contract expiration.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 05^th day of August, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.12.2018 in W.P.(C) No.22402 of 2018 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C).

2. Appellant contends that she had been working as Accountant cum Data entry operator in the 3^rd respondent Panchayat since 2016 and that before the same, she had worked in Pulpatta Grama Panchayat in the same post from 25.03.2008 till 09.01.2012. Her grievance is that the respondents had decided to induct fresh hands on a temporary basis by removing her from the said post. Terming such a decision as unjust, illegal and arbitrary and contending that she is entitled to continue in service till the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MNREG) Scheme continues in the 3^rd respondent Panchayat, she had filed the W.P.

(C) seeking the following prayers :

“i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P7 to the extent to which it does not extend the term of service of petitioner as Accountant- Cum-Data Entry Operator in the 3rd respondent Panchayat for inducting fresh hands on temporary basis as unjust, illegal and arbitrary;

ii) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to be terminated from service and that she is entitled to continue as AccountantCum-Data Entry Operator till MGNREGS continues.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service as Accountant -CumData Entry Operator in the 3^rd respondent Panchayat;

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to pass orders permitting the petitioner to continue in service as Accountant-Cum-Data Entry Operator in the 3^rd respondent Panchayat;

v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to refrain from inducting fresh hands in the post of Accountant-Cum-

Data Entry Operator on temporary basis;

vi) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the W.P. relying on the judgment dated 19.11.2018 in W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018 and holding that, given the direction to the respondents in the said judgment, there was no reason to interfere with the stand taken by the respondents. It was also held that the appellant, who has been working on a contract basis, did not have any right to continue after 01.07.2018. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal had been filed.

4. Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate, for the appellant, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, Government Pleader and Sri.Aashique Akthar Hajiigothi, learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent Areekode Block Panchayat.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment militates against the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inState of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others [ (1992) 4 SCC 118 )] and in a catena of other cases, wherein it had been held that temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set of temporary hands. It is also contended that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the dictum laid down in W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018 is erroneous since the appointments under MGNREG scheme are appointments made under the MGNREG Act, 2005 and not under the provisions of KS & SSR. The State Rules cannot govern a scheme constituted by the Central Government, and MGNREG scheme is an all-India Scheme applicable to all States in the country and provisions of Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR cannot be said to cover the appointment made in the scheme. The dictum laid down in Annexure 2 judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018 has no applicability since in