The court upheld that non-renewal of employment contract does not equate to termination, provided due process was followed.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)

No.9544 of 2020, challenging the judgment dated 18.06.2020, dismissing their writ petition.

2. The appellants 1 and 2 are Accredited Engineer and Accredited Overseer respectively, who were working under the 5^th respondent, Panchayat. The first appellant was working from 29.03.2008, and the second appellant was working from 01.06.2012, on the basis of contracts, which were renewed from time to time. On an earlier occasion, as per Ext.P6 order dated 12.10.2018, the appellants were terminated from service, even before the expiry of their tenure. The appellants challenged the said order by filing W.P.(C)No.33813/2018. This Court, by Ext.P8 judgment, allowed the writ petition and set aside Ext.P6 order terminating the appellants. This Court also permitted the appellants to continue in service till the expiry of the period stipulated in their respective agreements. Accordingly, the appellants continued their services with the Panchayat. Later, the Panchayat, as per Ext.P12 decision dated 10.03.2020, decided not to grant renewal of contract to the appellants, and Ext.P14 letter dated 20.04.2020, was sent to the first appellant regarding the same. It is challenging Exts.P12 and P14 as unjust, arbitrary, and illegal; the appellants preferred the afore writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition. 4. Heard Adv.Thulasi K.Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Adv.Sunilkumar Kuriakose, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Adv.C.Dilip, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decision taken to terminate the services of the appellants by not extending their contract, on the basis of some unsubstantiated allegation, is nothing but an indirect method of imposing a penalty upon them. She contended that the appellants have been terminated from service on the ground of unsatisfactory performance, even without issuing any notice and in violation of Ext.P13 order issued by the Government of India. She argued that even though the appointments were made on a contract basis, the termination of services of the appellants due to their non- satisfactory performance, without even granting an opportunity of hearing, will affect their future, and the same is arbitrary and illegal.

6. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Panchayat supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with it. They argued that the instant case is not one of termination of service and is only a decision taken not to renew the contract of the appellants after they completed the term. The learned counsel submitted that, even though initially the appellants were terminated on the basis of certain allegations, the same has been set aside by this Court as per Ext.P8 judgment and thereafter, the appellants have completed their tenure, and their agreement was even extended for another year. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the non-extension of the contract cannot be termed as penal in nature. They further submitted that the appellants have, after their termination, participated in the selection process conducted subsequently without any demur and after failing to qualify, has challenged the non-extension of their contract. They further contended that the vacancies have already been filled after the selection process and the persons selected are not made parties in the writ pe