Kerala High Court
Rajasree K.K vs State Of Kerala on 5 August, 2025
WA NO.202/2019 1
2025:KER:58155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO.202 OF 2019
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2018 IN WP(C)
NO.22402/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAJASREE.K.K
ACCOUNTANT-CUM-DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
AREEKODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
SMT.A.ARUNA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
SMT.K.C.AISHWARYA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
WA NO.202/2019 2
2025:KER:58155
2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER AND MISSION
DIRECTOR
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME, FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI,
T.C.26/1333(2), PANAVILA JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 AREEKODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM.
4 SECRETARY
AREEKODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM
5 THE BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER
AREEKODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM.
6 RAJITHA RAJAN
EFMS DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, PMAYG, AREACODE BLOCK
PANCHAYAT, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM -673 639
BY ADV.SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ, SC, AREACODE
BLOCK PANCHAYAT, MALAPPURAM
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.AASHIQUE AKTHAR HAJIIGOTHI, SC, AREEKODE
BLOCK PANCHAYAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.06.2025, THE COURT ON 05.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.202/2019 3
2025:KER:58155
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 05th day of August, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.12.2018
in W.P.(C) No.22402 of 2018 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant
was the petitioner in the W.P.(C).
2. Appellant contends that she had been working as
Accountant cum Data entry operator in the 3rd respondent Panchayat
since 2016 and that before the same, she had worked in Pulpatta
Grama Panchayat in the same post from 25.03.2008 till 09.01.2012.
Her grievance is that the respondents had decided to induct fresh
hands on a temporary basis by removing her from the said post.
Terming such a decision as unjust, illegal and arbitrary and
contending that she is entitled to continue in service till the Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MNREG) Scheme
continues in the 3rd respondent Panchayat, she had filed the W.P.
(C) seeking the following prayers :
WA NO.202/2019 4
2025:KER:58155
“i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P7 to the extent to which
it does not extend the term of service of petitioner as Accountant-
Cum-Data Entry Operator in the 3rd respondent Panchayat for
inducting fresh hands on temporary basis as unjust, illegal and
arbitrary;
ii) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to be terminated from
service and that she is entitled to continue as AccountantCum-Data
Entry Operator till MGNREGS continues.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit
the petitioner to continue in service as Accountant -CumData Entry
Operator in the 3rd respondent Panchayat;
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to
pass orders permitting the petitioner to continue in service as
Accountant-Cum-Data Entry Operator in the 3 rd respondent
Panchayat;
v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to
refrain from inducting fresh hands in the post of Accountant-Cum-
Data Entry Operator on temporary basis;
vi) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the W.P. relying on
the judgment dated 19.11.2018 in W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018 and
holding that, given the direction to the respondents in the said
judgment, there was no reason to interfere with the stand taken by
the respondents. It was also held that the appellant, who has been
WA NO.202/2019 5
2025:KER:58155
working on a contract basis, did not have any right to continue after
01.07.2018. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single
Judge, this Writ Appeal had been filed.
4. Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate, for the appellant,
Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, Government Pleader and Sri.Aashique
Akthar Hajiigothi, learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent
Areekode Block Panchayat.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the impugned judgment militates against the dictum laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Piara
Singh and others [(1992) 4 SCC 118)] and in a catena of other
cases, wherein it had been held that temporary employees cannot
be replaced by another set of temporary hands. It is also contended
that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the dictum
laid down in W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018 is erroneous since the
appointments under MGNREG scheme are appointments made
under the MGNREG Act, 2005 and not under the provisions of KS &
SSR. The State Rules cannot govern a scheme constituted by the
Central Government, and MGNREG scheme is an all-India Scheme
WA NO.202/2019 6
2025:KER:58155
applicable to all States in the country and provisions of Rule 9(a)(i)
of KS & SSR cannot be said to cover the appointment made in the
scheme. The dictum laid down in Annexure 2 judgment rendered in
W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018 has no applicability since in the said
case, the appointment concerned was neither made by the
Panchayat nor after following a process of selection. However, in
the case of the appellant, the appointment was made pursuant to
due process of selection, including notification and interview. The
learned counsel attempted to distinguish the dictum laid down in
C.Latha v. State (1993 (2) KLJ 497), Vinod v. State of Kerala
(1998 (1) KLT 607) and Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala (1998
(2) KLT 153) which have been relied on by the learned Judge in
W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018 as not applicable to the case of the
appellant. Pointing to the dictum laid down in Hargurpratap Singh
v. State of Punjab and others [(2007) 13 SCC 292], Manish Gupta
and another v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others [2022
SCC Online SC 485] it is submitted that one ad hoc arrangement
cannot be displaced by another ad hoc arrangement. The
observation in Dr.Barinder Kaur v. Guru Nanak Dev University
WA NO.202/2019 7
2025:KER:58155
[2015 SCC Online P & H 12156] that an employee appointed on a
contract or ad hoc basis should continue till regular appointments
are made, subject to his or her good performance, existence of work
and fitness, is also pointed out in support of the contentions by the
learned counsel. Placing reliance on the dictum laid down in Mohd.
Abdul Kadir and another v. Director General Police, Assam and
others [(2009) 6 SCC 611] it is further contended that staff
employed for a particular project or scheme, which is temporary
comes to an end as and when the project or scheme is completed
meaning thereby that the existence of posts in such a temporary
scheme is coterminous with the scheme. Reliance is also placed on
the dictum laid down in Abhinav Chaudhary and others v. Delhi
Technological University and another (2015 SCC Online Del
6780) to contend that a person who is employed under the scheme
has to continue the employment till the continuation of the scheme
and such a person’s services cannot come to an end/be terminated
before the expiry of the scheme except of course on disciplinary
grounds or unsatisfactory services or medical grounds or attaining
the normal age of retirement.
WA NO.202/2019 8
2025:KER:58155
6. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
respondent No.3 (Panchayat), that the appointments were made
strictly by law and that the appellant was not an ad hoc or temporary
employee. She was under a contractual temporary engagement, and
since the period of engagement had expired, there was no question
of replacing the appellant with another temporary employee, since
she was no longer in engagement. It is contended that the services
of the appellant had not been terminated, and since the period of
contractual engagement had expired, it had become necessary to
enter into further contractual engagements. Appellant is not entitled
to claim extension of contract as a matter of right, and the rights of
persons who are awaiting such engagement also have to be taken
into consideration. It is thus contended that there is no cause or
reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge, and
the appeal is only to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the dictum
laid down in Noorjahan A. and others v. State of Kerala and
others (MANU/KE/0407/2020) wherein it had been held by this
Court that upon expiry of the period of contract, if the appointing
authority decides to go for fresh selection, such action cannot be
WA NO.202/2019 9
2025:KER:58155
treated as illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory nor can it be seen as
depriving the livelihood of the persons already employed who, with
open eyes, took up a contractual employment for a specific period. It
is also submitted that the SLP filed in challenge to the judgment of
this Court in W.A.No.1570 of 2018 and connected cases,
Noorjahan A. (supra) has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 04.06.2020. It is thus prayed that the Writ
Appeal may be dismissed.
7. We have heard both sides and have considered the
contentions put forth. We have also perused the precedents relied
on. As regards the contention that temporary employees are not
liable to be replaced by another set of temporary employees and
that they must be replaced only by regular employees, the said
position is now indeed settled by a string of decisions. [See Cochin
University of Science and Technology v. Sudheesh Kumar P.S.
and others [(2023) SCC OnLine Ker 913)]. We note that in the
impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had relied on and
followed the judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.13660 of 2018. The
said judgment had been confirmed in W.A.No.243 of 2019 vide
WA NO.202/2019 10
2025:KER:58155
judgment dated 15.03.2019. It is after taking note of this affirmation
that, in Noorjahan A. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held as
follows:
“24. As we noticed, the terms of the Scheme provide for
contractual appointment and the agreements entered into at the
time of appointment clearly indicates the period. On expiry of
the period of contract, if the appointing authority decides to go
for fresh selection, such action cannot be treated as illegal,
arbitrary or discriminatory nor can it be seen as depriving the
livelihood of the persons already employed who, with open
eyes, took up a contractual employment for a specific period.
The rampant unemployment in the State has a direct nexus to
the density of population and the growing literacy. The State
while providing contractual employment has a duty to ensure
that the benefit reaches the maximum of the unemployed
without confining it to some. There is no contention that any
backdoor entries are being made and regular selections are
conducted even after the expiry of the contract period. All the
appellants assert that they were selected by a transparent
process and we do not perceive any reason to assume that the
selections made on the termination of their contractual periods
would be otherwise; on which allegation, if at all it arise, there
are forums to agitate such grievance. We reiterate that the
Scheme does not contemplate a regular appointment to posts
concerned with its implementation at the grass root levels nor
continuation of the appointees till the closure of the Scheme.
The Scheme could extend for eternity, looking at the intention
behind the enactment or be scrapped all of a sudden with a
change in policy. Just as the shifting sands of time, welfare
measures have a nebulous quality, which stands accentuated
with the Scheme specifically providing for only contractual
appointment.” (emphasis supplied)The SLP filed challenging Noorjahan A. (supra) has already been
dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. We have noted the contention
put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant based on the
dictum laid down in the State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das
WA NO.202/2019 112025:KER:58155
[AIR 2019 SC 2331] that the dismissal of an SLP in limine simply
implies that the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not
considered worthy of examination for a reason which may be other
than the merits of the case and that such in limine dismissal at the
threshold without giving any detailed reasons does not constitute a
declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the
Constitution. In the facts of the case at hand, we note as pointed out
in Noorjahan A. (supra), that the relevant scheme does not
contemplate a regular appointment to posts concerned with its
implementation at the grassroots levels nor continuation of the
appointees till the closure of the Scheme. Hence, the contentions
put forth by the learned counsel based on Mohd. Abdul Kadir
(supra), Abhinav Chaudhary (supra) have no applicability. It is trite
that in the case of contractual appointments where a period of
engagement is specified, on expiry of the period mentioned in the
contract, if the appointing authority decides to go for fresh selection,
such action cannot be treated as illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory. A
person who has taken up contractual employment for a specific
period cannot thus be heard to contend that she is not liable to be
WA NO.202/2019 122025:KER:58155
terminated from service after the stipulated period. In light of the said
unequivocal finding arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court,
which squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case at
hand, the learned Single Judge had correctly declined the relief
sought for. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of
the learned Single Judge.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
WA NO.202/2019 13
2025:KER:58155
APPENDIX OF WA 202/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 18.12.2018
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.
13660 OF 2018 DATED 19.11.2018
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.8.2018 IN
W.A.NO.1570/2018
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
01.12.2017 IN W.A.NO.1417/2017
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.2.2018 IN
DIARY NO.41387/2017
ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.2.2018 IN
O.A.NO.2018/2016