1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATAURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ORDER. (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8644/2009 Sohan Lal Choudhary vs. The State & ors. & ors. (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8595/2009 Rajesh Didwaniya vs. The State & ors. & ors. (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8611/2009 Bhawani Singh vs. The State & ors. & ors. (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8613/2009 Lahru Lal Ahir vs. The State & ors. & ors. (5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8614/2009 Kavita Meena vs. The State & ors. & ors. (6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8850/2009 Pooja Sharma vs. The State & ors. Date of Order: December 15th, 2009. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. P.S. Bhati & Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioners. Mr.G.R. Punia, Addl.Advocate General for the respondents. ... BY THE COURT : All these writ petitions, involving common question of law, are being decided by this common judgment. 2 The petitioners' contention is that under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme(NRGES), the respondents invited applications for the post of Programme Officer to effectively execute the scheme. Such appointment of Programme Officer was to be made on contractual basis at the level of Panchayat Samiti. For this, advertisement was published on 4.6.2008. The petitioners were eligible for the post and they applied for the post and ultimately, they were selected on the basis of merit and were given appointment. The petitioners continued to work at their respective places and, while they were working in service, were given training of induction course of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for Programme Officers held by Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj and Gramin Vikas Sansthan (State Institute of Rural Development). According to the petitioners, with the help of the petitioners, the project was carried so efficiently that the State of Rajasthan could reach to the position number one in the whole country in implementing NREGA. Though the appointment was on contract basis but it is clear from the circular dated 2.7.2009 that the post mentioned in the circular has been sanctioned upto 28.2.2010. It is clear from the circular dated 2.7.2009 that the post of Programme Officer can be filled in on the basis of contract or deputation and the Programme Officer is required to be appointed for 3 Panchayat Samiti. It is also provided in the contract that the contract can be extended by mutual consent for a period of not more than one year at a time but will not in any case exceed five years in all or the date on which the plan scheme/project closes whichever is earlier. The persons engaged in this employment are also entitled to leave, medical reimbursement, gazetted and restricted holidays, they are required to seek permission to leave headquarter and are also entitled to travelling allowances etc. In sum and substance, according to the petitioner, the work though has been given as on contract basis but the contract is extendable having the same privileges attached to the job with certainty, but the respondents suddenly terminated the contract and directed the petitioners to hand over the charge to the concerned authorities in the Panchayat Samiti. A copy of the order dated 1.9.2009 is annexed as Annex.8 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6644/09. The petitioners are aggrieved against all such orders of termination of the contract on the ground that the scheme NREGA, 2005 was enected with object and preamble to un-employeed persons in the rural area and, by due process of selection, the petitioners have been selected and have been given appointment to the post and from the conditions of service, it is clear that their performance is required to be adjudged and the employees are required to 4 follow the certain norms and further are entitled to certain benefits which are normally attached to the regular service in regular cadre and the term can be extended upto five years. The project has neither come to an end nor five years have completed, then the respondents have no right to terminate the services of the petitioners abruptly by merely taking a decision that the State has decided not to extend their contract. It is also submitted that it is clear from Annex.1 advertisement dated 4.6.2008 that the petitioners were selected for the post of Programme Officer and by prescribing the same qualifications as has been prescribed for Programme Officer in the advertisement dated 4.6.2008, the respondents invited applications for Assistant Programme Officers vide advertisment dated 2.9.2009, virtually asking the petitioners who are working as Programme Officer to accept the post of Assistant Programme Officer. Since this is nothing but asking the duly selected candidates to join on lower post. Therefore, the action of the respondents is highly unjust as well as arbitrary and contrary to the scheme. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and submitted that it is true that the petitioners were given appointment on the post of Programme Officer but in fact, as per Section 15 of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the Programme Officer can be a 5 person who is not below the rank of Block Development Officer, with such qualifications and experiences as may be determined by the State Government. The petitioners are not possessing the minimum required qualifications of being Block Development Officers appointed as per law and, therefore, they are not entitled to any of the relief. It is also submitted that apart from the provisions of the Act of 2005, namely, Section 15 and Section 2(m), guidelines given by the Central Government Department of rural development, clearly defines the Programme Officers in Chapter III of the guidelines, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex. R.2. In these guidelines, in column 3.1.2 also it has been provided that Programme Officer should be appointed at the Block level and the Programme Officer will not be below the rank of Block Development Officer. The Programme Officer will be a full-time dedicated officer and may be selected from Departmental personnel and may be taken on deputation. The other person may be appointed as Additional Programme Officer but no person can be appointed as Programme Officer who is not holding the rank of Block Development Officer. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record as well as the law relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. 6 As per sub-clause (m) of Section 2 of the Act of 2005, “Programme Officer” means an officer appointed under sub- section (1) of Section 15 for implementing the scheme. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act of 2005 reads as under:- “15.Programme Officer.-(1) At every Panchayat at intermediate level, the State Government shall appoint a person who is not below the rank of Block Development Officer with such qualifications and experiences as may be determined by the State Government as Programme Officer at the Panahayat at intermediate level.” From bare perusal of above said provision, it is clear that a person who is below the rank of Block Development Officer, cannot be appointed as Programme Officer and, admittedly, the petitioners are persons holding not rank in employment either of Block Development Officer or above said post, therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if they are not holding the rank of Block Development Officer and since they are qualified to hold post of Block Development Officer,they can be given appointment on the post of Programme Officer and are eligible to be appointed because of the simple reason that mere eligibility of a person to hold post is irrelevant when requirement of 7 holding of post of particular rank is there in the Act and Rules. In view of the above reason only, the petitioners cannot claim their continuation on the post of Programme Officer and even if the petitioners have been given appointment with designation of Programme Officer under contract, then because of that action of the respondents, no right is created in the petitioners so as to claim their appointment or continuation to hold on the post of Programme Officer when they are lacking basic required qualifications to hold the post of Programme Officer. The petitioners' contention that on the basis of exactly the same qualifications which were prescribed for the Block Development Officer vide earlier advertisement including advertisement dated 4.6.2009(Annex.1), the petitioners are now asked to work on lower post of Assistant Programme Officer and for Assistant Programme Officer also the same qualifications have been prescribed which were for the Programme Officer and thereby the respondents asked to the petitioners to join on lower post, is also no help to the petitioner in any manner because of the reason that if for some period, the petitioners have been given designation of Programme Officer under the scheme framed under the Act of 2005, even then they do not become eligible for the post of Programme Officer and if other post is offered to them, of Assistant Programme Officer, then that depends upon their 8 choice whether they want to accept the post or not. In view of above reasons, the petitioners are not entitled to claim their continuation on the post of Programme Officer. Hence the writ petitions are dismissed and the interim orders are vacated and the stay petitions are also dismissed. ( PRAKASH TATIA), J. mlt.