WP(C) 3867/2010 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI The decision of the respondent authorities in issuing the advertisement notice dated 19.05.2010 published in the Assam Tribune calling for applications from eligible candidates for filling up 1100 posts of Accredited Engineers (Dipl oma Holder) on contractual basis under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employm ent Guarantee Act (for short MGNREGA) by ignoring the contractual appointments o f the five petitioners is called into question in this case. Heard Mr C Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms Rekha Chackraborty, the learned State counsel, appearing for the State respon dents. The petitioners are admittedly Diploma Holders in Civil Engineering. In the year 2006, the respondent authorities published an advertisement notice dat ed 10.11.2006 calling for applications from eligible candidates for engagement o f Accredited Engineers on contract basis under the District Rural Development Ag ency Bongaigaon for implementation of the Scheme known as the National Rural Emp loyment Guarantee Act, 2005. The academic qualification for the posts of Accred ited Engineers prescribed therein is Diploma in Civil Engineering. The post is to carry a fixed monthly remuneration @ Rs. 4,000/- pm. In response to the adve rtisement, the petitioners applied for the posts and were interviewed and their names found a place in the select list for each VCDC under the Block of the conc erned districts. The order of contractual engagement was thereafter issued by t he respondent No. 4 of the respective concerned districts subject to execution o f the terms of contractual engagement. The petitioners were thereupon placed at the disposal of various Block Development Officer under the concerned district s. The contractual appointments of the petitioners were initially made for a pe riod of six months i.e. up to 31.05.2007, but their engagements were extended fr om time to time till 31.05.2009. Though respondents authorities used to assure the petitioners that their services would be extended, they were shocked to lear n that the respondent authorities published the advertisement dated 19.5.2010 in the Assam Tribune in its issue dated 21.05.2010 calling for applications from e ligible candidates to fill up 1100 posts of Accredited Engineers (Diploma Holder s) on contractual basis under the MGNREGA with a fixed remuneration of Rs. 10,00 0/-. The petitioners by this advertisement were apprehensive of the fact that t he advertisement was issued as a device for replacing them by another batch of c ontractual appointees. They also stumbled upon the letter dated 7.5.2010 issued by the respondent No. 2 in which it was mentioned that henceforth the Accredite d Engineers would be made by Civil Engineering (Diploma Holders) and the posts t o be designated as Accredited Engineers (Diploma Holders). The petitioners were also surprised to learn from the letter that directions had been issued to the concerned districts to take steps for terminating the contractual appointment of normal Accredited Engineers on selection of the Diploma Holders. Aggrieved by this, this writ petition is filed by the petitioners for appropriate relief. Th e writ petition is contested by the respondent authorities by filing their affid avit-in-opposition. On perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the resp ondent authorities through the respondents No. 3 and 4, it is obvious that their case is based upon Clause 7 of the contract executed between them and the respo ndents, which stipulated the appointment to be purely contractual appointments f or the period in question and that the petitioners should not claim for appointm ent or regularisation or for extension of their services. It is also stated by the answering respondents that the age bar for the Accredited Engineers is 18-35 years as on 01.10.2010 and that the petitioners have already crossed the age li mit as of now and are therefore, no longer eligible for contractual appointmen ts. These are the main contentions of the respondent authorities. Mr C Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the petitioners were duly selected by a Selection Committee in accordance with the advertisement on c ontractual basis, so long as the scheme continues for which they are appointed, their services cannot be discontinued except in accordance with the provisions o f the scheme. In support of this contention, he relies on the decision of the A pex Court in Mohd Abdul Kadir vs. Director General of Police, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611. On the other hand, Ms R Chackraborty, the learned State counsel whil e defending the impugned action of the respondent authorities contends that the appointments of the petitioners were purely on contractual basis, their contract ual engagements could be terminated at any time even without assigning any reaso n and that as the contractual appointments of the petitioners were terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract, they do not have any legitimate grie vance to make. She, therefore, submits that the writ petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. As per the proposition of law laid down by the A pex Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir (supra)l, if temporary or ad hoc engagement or ap pointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the a d hoc or temporary service of persons employed under the project or scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the project or scheme. On co mpletion of the project or discontinuance of the Scheme, those who were engaged with reference to, or in connection with, such project or scheme cannot claim an y right to continue in service, nor seek regularisation in some other project or service. In the instant case, the petitioners are not seeking regularisation o f their services. All they seek to do is to allow them to continue in their ser vices till the closure of the Scheme, namely, MGNREGA. There is no dispute at t he Bar that the scheme under the MGNREGA is still continuing till now. The Hon’ ble Supreme Court has always frowned upon artificial breaks in service. When ad hoc appointment is under a Scheme and is in accordance with the selection proces s prescribed by the Scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the Sch eme should not be continued as long as the Scheme continues. Ad hoc appointment under the Scheme are normally conterminous with the Scheme (subject to earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory ser vice or on attainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of length of t heir ad hoc service or the Scheme, they will not be entitled to regularisation, nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to regular employee s. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus held that in view of continuing the Scheme, e x-serviceman employed after undergoing selection process need not be subject to agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitude of annual termination and re-engagem ent, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc. The process of termi nation and re-appointment every year should be avoided and appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary ba sis, coterminous with the Scheme. In the light of the above observations of the Apex Court, I need say no more. So long as the Scheme under the MGNREGA contin ues, the petitioners cannot be given marching orders. In the result, the impugne d advertisement cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be quashed. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned letter dated 7.5.2010 (Annexure 10) and the advertisement notice d ated 19.5.2010 (Annexure 9) are hereby quashed. Consequently, the respondent au thorities are directed to continue the contractual engagement of the petitioners with the fixed remuneration of Rs. 10,000/- pm till the Scheme (MGNREGA) is dis continued in accordance with law. The parties are however, directed to bear the ir respective costs.