Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Union of India Through Ministry of Rural Development Department of Land Resources
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.26 18:26:14 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:48090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9065 of 2023 Neelam Das D/o. Lt. Lalsai Das Aged About 47 Years R/o Kabir Nagar Ward No. 07 Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus 1 - Union of India Through Ministry of Rural Development Department of Land Resources Watershed Management Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi (India) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - CEO, Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Authority (CGSWMA) Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Krishak Nagar, Labhandi Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint CEO Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Authority (CGSWMA) Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Krishak Nagar, Labhandi Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector Mahasamund (Chairman WCDC Mahasamund), Office of Collector, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 6 - Deputy Director, Agriculture Cum Project Manager O/o Deputy Director, Agriculture Mahasamund Baronda Chouk Mahasmund Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 9120 of 2023 Hemant Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Lachhi Ram Sinha Aged About 35 Years R/o B.T.I. Road Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Versus 1 - Union of India Through Ministry of Rural Development Department of Land Resources Watershed Management. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner 2 3 – CEO, Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Authority (CGSWMA), Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Krishak Nagar, Labhandi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint CEO, CEO Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Authority (CGSWMA) Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Krishak Nagar, Labhandi Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector Mahasamund (Chairman WCDC Mahasamund) Office of Collector, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Deputy Director Agriculture Cum Project Manager O/o Deputy Director, Agriculture Mahasamund Baronda Chouk, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 9123 of 2023 Namrta Dewangan W/o Shri Pradeep Dewangan Aged About 49 Years R/o Behind Tiwari Bulding Shankar Nagar Ward No. 01, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Union of India Through Ministry of Rural Development Department of Land Resources Watershed Management 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - CEO, Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Authority (CGSWMA) Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Krishak Nagar, Labhandi Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint CEO, CEO Chhattisgarh State Watershed Management Authority (CGSWMA) Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Krishak Nagar, Labhandi Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector Mahasamund (Chairman WCDC Mahasamund) Office of Collector, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Deputy Director, Agriculture Cum Project Manager O/o Deputy Director, Agriculture Mahasamund Baronda Chouk Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ritesh Giri, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer 3 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 18.09.2025 Order on Board 1. Inasmuch as these petitions involve common facts as well as identical questions of law, they have been clubbed together, heard
Decision
analogously, and are being disposed of by this common order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. 2. All the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities whereby their claim for reinstatement under the Integrated Water Management Programme (for short, ‘IWMP’) has been rejected, despite the fact that they are experienced persons whose services could have been beneficially utilized. The petitioners have also assailed the advertisement dated 07.06.2023 issued by respondent No.6 – Deputy Director, Agriculture-cum-Project Manager, inviting applications for various posts under WDC-PMKSY 2.0 on contract basis, while simultaneously denying continuation of the services of the petitioners. 3. In WPS No.9065/2023, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents in respect of issuance of the impugned order. 4 10.2 This Hon’ble Court be pleased set aside the order dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Deputy Director, Agriculture Cum Project Manager Mahasamund (C.G.), i.e. Respondent No.6. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court be pleased set aside the Advertisement dated 07.06.2023 (Annexure P/6) passed by Deputy Director, Agriculture Cum Project Manager Mahasamund (C.G.), i.e. Respondent No.6. 10.4 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service as WDT members in their respective posts. 10.5 Other relief has deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.” 4. In WPS No.9120/2023, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents in respect of issuance of the impugned order. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court be pleased set aside the order dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Deputy Director, Agriculture Cum Project Manager Mahasamund (C.G.), i.e. Respondent No.6. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court be pleased set aside the Advertisement dated 07.06.2023 5 (Annexure P/6) passed by Deputy Director, Agriculture Cum Project Manager Mahasamund (C.G.), i.e. Respondent No.6. 10.4 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service as WDT members in their respective posts. 10.5 Other relief has deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.” 5. In WPS No.9123/2023, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents in respect of issuance of the impugned order. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court be pleased set aside the order dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Deputy Director, Agriculture Cum Project Manager Mahasamund (C.G.), i.e. Respondent No.6. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court be pleased set aside the Advertisement dated 07.06.2023 (Annexure P/7) passed by Deputy Director, Agriculture Cum Project Manager Mahasamund (C.G.), i.e. Respondent No.6. 10.4 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service as WDT members in her respective posts. 6 10.5 Other relief has deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.” 6. Brief facts of all the three writ petitions, are that the petitioners were engaged under the IWMP, their initial appointments being made in the year 2010, 2012 and 2013 respectively. Since then, they have been continuously working on their respective posts in the department and their contractual engagements were extended from time to time. On 31.03.2022, 28.11.2017 and 06.11.2015, the project was formally closed and the petitioners were relieved from service with an oral assurance that as and when funds became available and the project was revived, their services would be continued. However, in the same project, the services of certain employees were continued. Subsequently, on 07.06.2023, the respondent authority issued an advertisement inviting applications for various posts under WDC-PMKSY 2.0 on contract basis. According to the petitioners, once the project was restarted and funds were made available, the respondents were required to continue their services rather than issuing a fresh advertisement. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred WPS No.7167/2023 before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the respondents, in a casual manner, without application of mind and 7 without assigning any cogent reason, rejected the claim of the petitioners, giving rise to the present writ petitions. 8. Mr. Ritesh Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners were engaged under the IWMP and since their initial appointments in the year 2010, 2012 and 2013 respectively, they had been discharging duties on a contractual basis. Subsequently, the project was closed and the petitioners were relieved from service with an oral assurance that their services would be continued as and when the project was revived. It is further submitted that the petitioners were also issued experience certificates from time to time acknowledging their services. After being relieved, the petitioners made representations before the respondent authorities requesting that they be taken back in service, as they possessed long-standing experience in the field. However, instead of considering their claim, respondent No.6 issued an advertisement on 07.06.2023 inviting applications for various posts under WDC-PMKSY 2.0 on contractual basis, thereby denying the continuation of the petitioners’ services. It is submitted that in an earlier round of litigation, the petitioners had approached this Court in WPS No.7167/2023, wherein a direction was issued to the respondents to decide their representations within a stipulated period. The said representations, however, were rejected in a casual and mechanical manner, without due application of mind and without assigning any cogent reason. 9. Learned counsel further contends that it is well-settled in law that 8 one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees, which is impermissible. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Gupta and another v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others, (2022) 15 SCC 540. 10. Per contra, Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned counsel for the State submits that the Government has taken a conscious policy decision not to extend the period of contractual appointments, and accordingly, the services of the petitioners were not continued. It is urged that the contractual tenure of the petitioners had already come to an end on 31.03.2022, 28.11.2017 and 06.11.2015 respectively, therefore, they have no vested right to seek extension or continuation of their engagement. It is further contended that the matter of contractual engagement lies within the discretion of the authorities concerned, and if the petitioners were desirous of being considered for subsequent contractual appointments, they ought to have applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.06.2023. If they fulfill the requisite qualifications, they would be eligible to participate in the fresh selection process. Instead of submitting their applications, the petitioners have chosen to challenge the advertisement itself, which is not permissible in law. Learned counsel submits that 9 since the petitioners’ services were discontinued as far back in the year 2022, 2017 and 2015, and the subsequent advertisement was issued on 07.06.2023, the petitioners cannot claim any enforceable right either for reappointment or for extension of their earlier contractual appointment. 11. I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed purely on contractual basis under the IWMP. Their engagement was never against any sanctioned regular post, but was only co-terminus with the duration of the project and subject to renewal from time to time at the discretion of the authorities. Upon completion of the project, the contractual term of the petitioners also automatically came to an end. Once the tenure of the project itself expired, the Department had no authority in law to extend the contractual period of the petitioners on its own. The subsequent advertisement dated 07.06.2023, inviting applications for fresh contractual appointments under WDC-PMKSY 2.0, was an open selection process, accessible to all eligible candidates. The petitioners, instead of availing the opportunity by applying in pursuance of the said advertisement, chose not to participate and, instead, approached this Court by challenging the advertisement. It is also significant to note that it is not the case of the petitioners 10 that immediately upon cessation of their services another set of contractual employees was brought in to replace them, which could have rendered the action arbitrary or discriminatory. 13. The settled principle of law is that contractual employees cannot be substituted by another set of contractual or ad hoc employees, and such discontinuance can only be justified when the posts are filled through regular appointments made after following the due recruitment procedure. However, the present case stands on a different footing. Here, the project itself came to an end in the year 2022, 2017 and 2015, and the services of the petitioners also came to an end. It was only after more than a year, when fresh funds were allocated and the project was restructured under WDC-PMKSY 2.0, that the respondents issued a fresh advertisement for engagement on contractual basis. Thus, the factual scenario is not of replacement of one set of contractual employees by another in continuation of the same project, but a case where the contractual tenure stood terminated with the completion of the project, and thereafter, a fresh process of recruitment was undertaken for a revived project with different terms and requirements. 14. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Gupta (supra) does not come to their aid as the ratio laid down therein is clearly distinguishable on facts. In Manish Gupta (supra), the 11 controversy pertained to replacement of one set of contractual employees by another, which was held impermissible. In the present cases, however, the petitioners’ tenure had already expired with the closure of the IWMP project, and therefore, no subsisting right survived in their favour. The subsequent advertisement dated 07.06.2023 was issued after the revival of the project in a different form and with different contractual requirements. Thus, the principle laid down in Manish Gupta (supra) cannot be mechanically applied to the facts at hand. 15. This Court is of the view that once the project itself had been completed and came to an end, the petitioners had no vested or enforceable right to seek continuation of their services. Contractual employment, by its very nature, is limited to the period stipulated in the contract or the life of the project and cannot confer a right of permanence or continuity. The oral assurances allegedly given to the petitioners cannot override the terms of their contractual appointment or the settled legal position. It was always open to the petitioners to apply pursuant to the fresh advertisement if they fulfilled the requisite qualifications, but having failed to do so, they cannot now seek to assail the advertisement itself. The action of the respondents in issuing the subsequent advertisement cannot, therefore, be termed arbitrary, discriminatory, or contrary to law. 12 16. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents either in discontinuing the petitioners upon the completion of the IWMP project in the year 2022, 2017 and 2015 or in issuing the subsequent advertisement dated 07.06.2023 for contractual engagement under WDC- PMKSY 2.0. The petitions are thus devoid of merit. 17. Accordingly, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge