Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs (prayer clause and facts of lead case has been taken into consideration):- "a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned illegal action on the part of respondent authorities in not extending the term of contractual engagement of petitioner beyond 21.10.2017 and thereby removing/terminating services of the petitioner from the post of Consultant-Water Quality, Communication and Capacity Development Unit (C.C.D.U), Water and Sanitation Support Organization W.S.S.O.), State Water and Sanitation Mission (S.W.S.M.), Rajasthan, Jaipur may kindly be declared illegal and accordingly be quashed and set aside. b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may also kindly be directed to continue to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Consultant-Water Quality, Communication and Capacity Development Unit (C.C.D.U), Water and Sanitation Support Organization W.S.S.O.), State Water and Sanitation Mission (S.W.S.M.), Rajasthan, Jaipur till availability of regularly selected candidates or the said project is in operation. c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. d) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
(2.) The petitioner underwent selection process and faced interview for being appointed on the post of Consultant in Communication and Capacity Development Unit (CCDU), State Water and Sanitation Mission, Rajasthan, Jaipur on contractual basis on a consolidated professional fee of Rs. 30,000/- per month, which was mentioned in his appointment letter dated 05.7.2008 (Annex.4). The petitioner's service were utilized by CCDU under the control of Water and Sanitation Support Organization (WSSO). The contractual engagement of petitioner was extended from time to time by the respondents, however, due to internal change of set up of the State of Rajasthan, a tripartite memorandum of understanding was entered into between the State Water and Sanitation Mission (S.W.S.M.), Rajasthan; Indian Institute of Health Management Research (IIHMR) and UNICEF came to be terminated by the State Government w.e.f. 31.3.2010 and in place thereof the Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India under the Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission issued guidelines for implementation of National Rural Drinking Water Programme 2008-2012, whereby it was recommended to set up Water and Sanitation Support Organization (SWSM) to deal with the support activities. The changed set up resulted into re-appointment of the petitioner as Consultant, Water Quality in CCDU, WSSO, SWSM, Rajasthan, Jaipur on contract for a fee of Rs. 40,000/- per month, the said order is Annex.9. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time. The extension of service was based upon performance, for which duly constituted Committee was constituted by the respondents. The respondents, however, took a decision that services of the petitioner shall be continued only upto 31.3.2018. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's service cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee as the original plan has been prepared/approved for the period 2011-2022 by the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India upto 2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mooli Devi Choudhary and ors. v. State of Rajasthan and ors., reported in RLW 2010(4) (Raj.) 3714 , the relevant portion whereof of which reads as follows : "41. Therefore, for these reasons, this Court is inclined to allow these writ petitions with aforesaid directions and following answers to the questions framed above. Conclusions: (i) Question No. 1 is answered in the manner that employment of teachers for SSA or KGBV is a 'sovereign function' of imparting education by the State Government or the Central Government and such 'sovereign function' including employment of teachers for imparting education cannot be delegated to private placement agencies by the State Government. (ii) Question No. 2 is answered like this that since the State Government has not so far enacted any law nor it has laid down any guidelines or parameters for selection of private placement agencies, therefore, practice of giving away such contract by the State Govt. to the private placement agencies is unconstitutional and cannot be sustained and the teachers and other related staff in SSA or KGBV cannot be treated as employees of private placement agencies whether such projects are financed by the Central Government or the State Government or any other agency. (iii) Question No. 3 is answered in the manner that the object of SSA Or KGBV is not a project of limited tenure or period and the nonavailability of funds cannot be a ground to discontinue the said educational programmes and such programmes even with or without the change of name have to be continued to give effect to the provisions of the Act No. 35 of 2009, namely, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Article 21A of the Constitution of India. (iv) Question No. 4 is answered in the manner that the provision of Article 21A and provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are of paramount and supervening importance and Appropriate Governments should adopt a uniform employment policy for teachers and other staff under it with assured continuity of employment with all other benefits which are payable to regular civil servants including the teachers employed in Government schools even as of now. (v) Question No. 5 is answered in the manner that teachers cannot be treated as workmen so as to subject them to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (vi) Question No. 6 is answered in negative and it is held that fixed term contract of service for the teachers in SSA or KGBV Projects on year to year basis by different placement agencies with no assured continuity of employment is not justified, nor it is a legally sustainable practice."
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the reply wherein it has been submitted that the engagement are not continuous, however, from time and time extensions were allowed. After completion of extension, a Review Committee met on 04.7.2016 and it was held that contract will not be extended further. Counsel for the respondent supports this statement with the help of Annex.R/1 dated 11.7.2016. Counsel for the respondent further pointed out that service of the petitioner was governed by a contractual agreement and Clause 6 of agreement is regarding termination which states that the contract can be terminated with notice of one month on either side or by depositing/paying one month's package/contract amount in lieu of notice. Counsel for the respondent further shows that though the strategy plan was from 2011-2022 but that does not mean that the services of petitioner is required to be extended as the appointments were contractual one, which has to come to an end.;