Procedural irregularities in employee termination under the MGNREG scheme can render such decisions invalid.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner seeks to retain her as Accredited Engineer in the 4^th respondent-Panchayat. 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Overseer in the Puramattam Grama Panchayat in March, 2010. The appointment was under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The appointment was on a contract basis. Agreement was executed for a period of two years, which was renewed from time to time based on performance appraisal.

3. While so, a vacancy of Accredited Engineer arose in the 4^th respondent-Panchayat. Overseers with 10 years experience were eligible to apply. The petitioner applied for the post and was selected. She executed an agreement with the 4^th respondent in September, 2021. After performance appraisal, a new agreement was executed in October, 2023.

4. The petitioner was asked to execute a new agreement, that too after completion of performance appraisal in the year 2024. In the performance appraisal, the petitioner scored 106 marks out of 135. Ext.P2 agreement was executed on 16.08.2024 which is valid up to 15.08.2026. The petitioner has been performing her duties to the satisfaction of all.

5. The President of the Panchayat required the petitioner to submit an application for renewal. She obeyed the direction though a fresh application was not necessary in the midst of contract period. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the Panchayat Committee, in its meeting held on 25.10.2025, decided not to renew the contract of the petitioner. The 5^th respondent-Secretary required the petitioner to handover all files. It is understood that the 5^th respondent issued a letter of termination, but the petitioner has not received the same.

6. The petitioner complained to the District Program Coordinator, the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent informed the 6^th respondent about the procedure and guidelines for terminating the services of an employee. As per paragraph 9 of the G.O. dated 29.06.2024, termination of contract of an employee is permissible only on permitted occasions.

7. The petitioner states that the procedure in Government Orders were not followed for terminating the service of the petitioner. No reason is given for not renewing the contract. The intention of the 6^th respondent is malafide.

Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

8. Respondents 4 to 6 resisted the writ petition.

The respondents submitted that the petitioner is not holding any Engineering Degree as stipulated in G.O. dated 30.11.2019. The petitioner's application could have been considered only in the absence of other graduate Engineers or Diploma holders. The appointment of the petitioner in the year 2021 was without any paper notification or selection proceedings. This is evident from Annexure-R4(b). When the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee of the 4^th respondent, the Committee decided to conduct selection to the post of Accredited Engineer afresh. Consequently, the petitioner was required to handover the charge.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel respondents 4 to 6.

10. The petitioner is aggrieved by the attempt of the respondents to terminate the petitioner from service. The petitioner was regularly selected as Overseer under the MGNREG Scheme and was appointed as such in March, 2010. The petitioner was granted renewal of contract from time to time, after subjecting her to performance appraisal. In the year 2021, when a vacancy of Accredited Engineer arose in the 4^th respondent-Panchayat, the petitioner submitted application.

11. As the pe