Contractual employment extension requires favorable performance appraisals from supervisory authorities, not solely self-assessments by the employees.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order of the Director of Local Self Government (Urban) Department issued on 03.08.2022 by which the name of the petitioner stands excluded from the list of candidates eligible for mandatory renewal of contractual employment for a further period of two years.

2. The petitioner is a Graduate in Civil Engineering.

The petitioner was appointed as Overseer in the Pala Municipality on contractual basis, under the Ayyankali Urban Employment Guarantee Scheme . The petitioner joined the Municipality on 22.08.2019 for a period of one year. The tenure of the petitioner was extended for a further period of one year. In the backdrop of Covid-19 pandemic, the Government took a decision to permit all employees in service to continue till the end of the financial year. By another decision, the Government decided not to terminate the employees continuing on contract basis till 30.06.2022.

3. The Director of Municipalities requested the Government to permit employing persons who are continuing in service on contract basis for a period of two more years after giving one day interval. The Government issued Ext.P3 order dated 30.06.2022. Ext.P3 GO contemplated a performance appraisal of the employees on a specific format. Thereupon, the petitioner as well as the Accountant-Cum-IT Assistant named Jinju Rani Mathew filled up their respective performance appraisal and sent it to the office of the 2nd respondent-Director.

4. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P7 proceedings on finalisation of the performance appraisal of the employees continuing in service on contract basis. In Ext.P7 proceedings, the name of the petitioner was included in the list of persons failed to succeed in assessment.

5. The petitioner states that according to the respondents, the petitioner failed to secure 60 marks in the assessment of performance appraisal. The petitioner has been awarded only 40 marks. At the same time, Accountant- Cum-IT Assistant named Jinju Rani Mathew was awarded 70 marks. As per the Scheme, 80 out of the total 90 marks is based on the performance appraisal report and the remaining 10 marks is to be awarded based on the opinion of the Secretary.

6. The petitioner would urge that the performance appraisal statement given by the petitioner and Jinju Rani Mathew were one and the same except for their personal details. But, there is a difference of 30 marks, which is impossible. Even if the Secretary does not award 10 marks allocable by him to the petitioner, still the petitioner would be eligible for 60 marks which is sufficient to qualify for extension of employment for an additional period of two years as mandated in Ext.P3, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The Senior Government Pleader argued that the performance appraisal has been done by the Municipal authorities and the Government has accepted such appraisal made by the Local Self Government Institutions. The Government has not independently made any updation of the performance of the petitioner or similarly situated contractual employees. The Government cannot make an independent appraisal as the employees are working under the Local Self Government Institutions. Therefore, the petitioner cannot find fault with Ext.P7 proceedings/order.

8. The Standing Counsel representing respondents 3 and 4 resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that respondents 3 and 4 are competent to assess the work of the petitioner. Considering the output of the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 found that the service of the petitioner is not satisfactory.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

10. The appointment of the petitioner is on purely contractual basis. Extension of the service of the contractual appointees like the petitioner after 30.06.2022, was