The Tribunal's decision to permit retention was erroneous as it failed to recognize prior terminations, emphasizing proper adherence to established employment contracts.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioners are the respondents in O.A.(EKM)No.1874 of 2017 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, which was one filed by the respondents herein-applicants, who were working as Scheduled Tribe Promoters seeking an order directing the respondents therein to permit them to continue in the post of Scheduled Tribe Promoters; a direction to the respondents not to replace the applicants by new candidates on temporary appointment as Scheduled Tribe Promoters; and a declaration that the applicants are eligible to continue in the post of Scheduled Tribe Promoters. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal, by Ext.P2 order dated 30.08.2017, disposed of O.A.(EKM)No.1874 of 2017, by declaring that the applicants are entitled to continue till 18.11.2017 and they will be entitled to honorarium at fixed rate for the above period. In Ext.P2 order, the Tribunal has taken note of its earlier order dated 23.05.2017 in O.A.No.881 of 2015. Paragraphs 2 to 4 and also the last paragraph of Ext.P2 order dated 30.08.2017 in O.A.(EKM)No.1874 of 2017 read thus;

2. On the matter coming up for admission it is noted that this Tribunal has considered the issue of retention of similarly situated persons, i.e., SC Promoters who were engaged by the Government for the upliftment and to carry out various welfare measures in the Scheduled Caste communities. The applicants herein, ST Promoters, are appointed on contract basis for the upliftment of the Scheduled Tribe community and also for implementing various welfare measures. As per the order of this Tribunal in O.A.No.881 of 2015 and connected cases dated 23.05.2017 this Tribunal, on an elaborate consideration of the question held that their engagement on contract basis was not against any sanctioned post. It was held that the engagement was purely temporary in nature and it was held that temporary engagement would not grant them any right for regularisation in service. In paragraph 43 of the above order it was held as follows:-

"Therefore, we hold as follows:

(a) The challenge against the Government orders Annexures A18, A19, i.e., G.O.(Rt)No.481/2015/ SCSTDD dated 17.03.2015 and G.O.(Rt)No.653/ 2015/SCSTDD dated 25.04.2015 is rejected and we uphold the same.

(b) Clause III of Annexure A17 dated 24.12.2014 barring SC Promoters who have 8 years or more service from being considered for fresh selection is set aside.

(c) There is no legal embargo for replacing SC Promoters who have been appointed purely on contract, ie. based on the fresh selection conducted pursuant to Annexure A17 GO dated 24.12.2014 produced in O.A.No.881 of 2015.

d) Since clause III of Government order dated 24.12.2014 is set aside, in all cases where such persons have not been permitted to participate in the selection process solely for the reason that they have already put in 8 years or more service, the selection process will be conducted afresh at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In respect of the applicants who have been allowed to participate in the fresh selection based on interim orders passed in various Original Applications, their eligibility will be considered.

(e) Persons who have been newly appointed pursuant to the selection conducted as per Government order dated 24.12.2014 under various notifications for a fixed term of one year and who have been continuing based on the interim orders in these cases have no right to continue beyond the specified term provided in the orders of appointment. The interim orders in all cases are vacated. The applicants who have been the beneficiaries of the interim orders and have been continuing as SC Promoters will be entitled to be paid honor