C/(Q R60) 1N THE HIGH co RT OF CHHATTI GARH AT BILAsPUR WRIT PETITION (s) NQ‘DégZ) OF 2007 PETITIONERS 1. Anup Sandip Khalkho S/o Shri Rafail A Khalkho, aged about 22 years, R/o Gram ' Panchayat—Tapkara, Janpad Panchayat Jashpur , District Jashpur (C.G.) Ashilesh Kumar'Yadav S/o Shri Bandhan Ram, aged about 28 years, R/o Gram Panchayat- Jiling, Janpad Panchayat' Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) V Tilak Kumar S/o Shri Sukhnath Ram, Gram aged about 27 years, R/o Panchayat-Tekui,’ Janpad Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) Rakhnu Ram S/o shri Biroram, aged about 32 years, R/o Gram Panchayatw Kinkei, Janpad Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) Arbind Bad-a S/o Shri Rafaii Bada, aged about 22 yeas, R/o Gram Panchayat— Narayanpur (Chichari), Janpad Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) Smt. Kesensiya Kujur W/o Shri Vinay Kujur, aged about 30 years, R/o Gram Panchayat-Lokhandi, Janpad Panchayat Jashpur, DistrictJashpur (C.G.) 7. Ku. Korneliya' Kujur D/o Shri Johan Kujur, aged about 30 years, R/o Gram Panchayat-Saitangartoii, I Janpad Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur _ (C.G.) 8. Ku. Swarniata Minj D/o Shri Wiliam Monz, aged about 26 years, R/o Gram V / o RESPONDENTS : f ® Panchayat- Pidi, Janpad Panchayat ashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) Shivnath Ram S/o Mahju Ram, aged m about 24 years, R/o Gram Panchayat— Chhota Banai, Janpad Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) Pravin Toppo S/o Shri Benjamn, aged about 25 years, R/o Gram Panchayat- Dipatoii, Janpad Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G,) Virendra Ram Bhagat S/o Chaturam Bhagat, aged about 29 years, R/o viilage Lodam, Janpad Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur C.G. Ku. Asima Toppo D/o Kashmir Toppo, aged about 19 years, R/o Gram Panchayat- Badakaraunja, Janpad Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) Ku. Sunita Bhagat D/o 'Ramu Ram Bhagat, aged about 26 years, R/o Panchayat iilage' Jakba, Janpad Jashpur, District Jashpur C.G. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, DKS Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Employment Guarantee Council, Vikas Aayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) Union of India, Through the Scretary, Ministry of Rural Development New Delhi 2 . VERSUS 1. J i i V a ® 4. District Programme Coordinator (Collector) Under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) Ziia Panchayat, Jashpur, Through the Chief Executive Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) 6. Janpad Panchayat, Jashpur, Through: Chief Executive Officer, District Jashpur (C.G.) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE ‘ WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUSICERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTIQNIORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. XI-HC—7 8 WWW ammm rder has been passed in W.P.(S) No. others v. (5.5: Hon’ble Shri safish K. Agnih 21.07.2008 Common judgment and c 7006/2007 (Sokef Tripofhi and Others) and ofher connected mdh‘ers. including This pefifion. L h ... .. Reader io His Lordship. WW,W€W \M'QC59 é30/07 m Sidie Qf Chhdiiisgorh & By order Sd/- 4‘ % '/ ‘ _, Q,,AJ:L é: ARH: BILASPU HIGH COURT OF CH’HAxTISG RIT PETITION 1S) No. 7006 of 2007 Saket Tripathi & others . ' PETiTIONERs V s. / j State of Chhvattisgar‘h‘ &:othezr RES?€)NDENTS ‘ THER CONNECTED MATTERS Q . Judgmentan Qrero’ hum/2608 v ‘ #M Sdl- V . atish K. Agnhotrl d Post for ,pronbuncjemént Of the f s 1 R W s:q Aw. d dn S j Juge ’ ‘ * € HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) >No. '7006 of 20m : 1. Saket Triathi S/o Late Durgacharan Tripathi, Aged about 2' ars,.0cpatidn Svice, .Post as uhnt under the Rul Emploment uarantee ch igh School Roa bau, istrict Surguja Chattisga. . . Aru Kumar atw rS/o Naraya Fwa; Aed abou years Pot as ccountant undethe Ru plom Guarantee chee, R/ nt o 1 mplomt Offlc rivi Villa, Ring. Roa aaka, mbikapr, Dstrict : urguj, Chhatsarh. ‘ ’ . anesh Dutt h S/o Shiv rasadv Mishr, ed about ye std s ou th al 26- ars, Poe i a Accntant under e Rur Eplyment Guarantees Sheme We Sattipara Chovk mo c y, N d, biapu, : Sja, Chaih. ehru War Amkr District urgu httsgar Hea Ratan Rjwade o Lat rijmo aade, ged about 6 years Posted as ccott. nr h Rura Empoyt Gnarantee chee, loar Powe oue, lmen Sm R/vNe r Hs N biu Dri Chhsgh amnakala, Amkapr, istct : Surguj‘a, attiar. . NaVin Kuma pta S/o Baijnh Gupta Aged abou 0 years, Posted as Acct under the Rural mploynt Guant chme o Msion Chowl<,es Road, i arur,» Ambikapur Disr : Surguja .Cattisga ' V _ . epenr Sig S/o suresh'Ptap Sngh Age aot ’ years, osted s Accountant nder he Ru Empyt- uaranee Scheme, R/o Vilge 4: 'Barou, hatgaon, Dstrit : rguja Cattisgarh. _ '- I . Nimesh Kmar Shrastav _/ .P.Shrivastava, about years Poste s Accoant. uner th ral: Empment/Guaantee Scee o C/ Anand Electrical ' Sadar Rad, Ambikapur, strit : Surguja, Cha‘ttisgarh. “I“ , - . ' VERSUS ‘ H v , :1: e RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgar-h Through the Secretary, Department ‘ ’ of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K‘S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Z > > ’ Chhattisgarh State Employmentlmplementation Guarantee Council, Through its President, Chief > Minister’s Secretariat, D.K.S.‘ Bhawan,.Raipur Chhattisgarh. ' . Union‘ofzlndia, Through the Secretary, Ministry Of Rural Development,New Delhi. . , ‘ I ' i . District. Programme COOrdinator (Collector) under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, . 2005 Ambikapur, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh. _ Zila Panchayat, Surguja, Through its Chief Executiv Officer: Ambikapur, District: Surguja,,Chhattisg‘arh. ' ETITIONER PS Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. ' ' Shri Y.S:Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1& 2 Shri S.K.Beriwal, Standing CounSel forthe Union‘of India/respondent No. 3. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent No. 4 and 5. > v t p 7 yecu : er ed Accota» ra y G Séme R/o H d, Amikpr D , hrh n Fa ’ n at g t 29’ , sed A r ral Emyent Sm o .In fro f 0d Eyen e, Ten d; Nmnal Au i Sa tig ‘ G Misra ,P a Ag . er a S/ e Bhan Rjw A 2 ; Aunan ude te l , r Gu at , t 3 ountan Eme aree Se R/ is ‘Wtern Ring Ked‘p , tict“ , hhrh. a i . Deda nh ra i d bu 26 P a u t ral lomen Gt la dhi B ic Su hh u iva So V Aged 31 , d a unt d e Ru loyr hm R/ o , o Dic h : , . e SB: HOn’ble Shri Saitish.K. Agnihotri1J 7 ‘ ‘ (Passed’ofl-[Qi 5 dayibf r July;2008) x . . ' 1. ' ’ In th1s batch of petltlons the common questlon of law 1s asto whether the ' ' ' ROJgar Sahayaks Techmcal As31stants Accountants and others appomted for a contract penod of one year are entltled to be cons1dered for extenslon of . w . the term of appomtment 1n the subsequent year secondly, whether the. , v: pet1t1oners are entltled to grant of preference/welghtage on account of thelr' ' I expenence of thetr work for one year on contract basrs 2. Followmg wr1t petltlons 1 e W P (S) No 7482/2007 7589/2007 7590/2007 7595/2007 7596/2007 7598/2007 7678/2007 7679/2007 7680/2007 -7720/2007 7721/2007 7724/2007 7725/2007 7726/2007 7729/2007‘ [7747/2007 7749/2007 7750/2007 7751/2007 7753/2007 7754/2007' 7756/2007 7757/2007 7758/2007 7759/2007 01/2008 02/2008 194/2008 " 195/2008 242/2008 243/2008 244/2008 245/2008 269/2008 311/2008 312/2008 507/2008 70/2008; 975/2008 1077/2008 1170/2008‘ "1171/2008 1187/2008 1215/2008 1556/2008 7722/2007 7727/2007 1212/2008 2115/2008 and 2334/2008 deal w1th appomtment of ROJgar v L Sahayak WP(S) 7101/2007 7307/2007 7325/2007 7631/2007 7706/2007 2216/2008 and 7069/2007 deal w1th appomtment of Technlcal Assrstantq, WP (S) No 7006/2007 and 7312/2007 deal Wlth appomtment of, l’Accountants WP (S) NO 7743/2007 deals w1th apporntment of Technlcal . V Assmtants, Accountants and Assrstant Grade ll v '3. i ROJgar Sahayaks Accountants and Techn1cal Asswtants and others are' I appomted to aSSISt the Dlstrlct Programme Coordmator and the Programme t Officers for the effectrve unplernentatlon of the Employment Guarantee SCheméThe petitioners were accordingly appointed on (contrae‘t’basis in the 1*. year 2005, 2006 and 2007 for a period of one year with a condition that the contract appointment would be for a period of one year, confidential report of the employees would be maintained to assess their suitability for consideration in the subsequent contract appointment. The appointments were made pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.3.2006, in case of Accountants and Technical Assistants, issued’by the State Government, wherein it was clearly provided that the appointment of the petitioners are on contract basis .for a period of one year and their period may be extended further for one more year. It was further provided in the advertisement that the contract appointméht is made in accordance with Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyarn, 2004 (for short ‘the Rules, 2004’). In case of Rojgar Sahayaks, there was no uniformity in the appointment orders. Some of the appointment orders issued by some of the Districts namely Raigarh and Jashpur provide for recording of confidential reports and assessment of their work for considering their cases for further extension of the term of appointment; In other cases, no.such provision was made. Applicability of Rules, 2004 was also not mentioned in some ofthe appointment orders. The advertisements were issued at District level without providing for terms and ‘ conditions of appointment. In the meantime, a fresh advertisement was issued in November, 2007 inviting applications for appointments on the post of Rojgar Sahayak, Technical Assistant and Accountants. Thus, these petitions are filed challenging issue of the advertisement and selection thereof ignoring the terms and conditions of initial advertisement an‘d the appointment ordcr that their cases may be considered for extension of the period of appointment ‘ on the basis of their performance during their services. In some of the appointment orders issuedby the Jila Panchayat, Jashpur. it was provided that the term of appointment may be extendedion the basis of 99 . ‘100 ‘ assessment and suitability ‘ recommended by the ‘Pidgramme’. @fficer- Some _ \ of the appomtment orders arismg &om Jashpur and other areas, prov1de that . ' the appomtment of ROJgar Sahayak would be under the prov1s1ons of Rules ' 2004 This cond1t1on 1s not prOVIded 1n some of the appomtrnent orders ‘71ssued by Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur Bilaspur etc In some of the. ' appomtments a there was no- prov1510n for extensmn of term of the " .e .. appomtment or applicability of the Rules 2004 In case of Bilaspur and. v Jagdalpur there was no condition for extenSion or applicability of the f prov1s1ons of Rules 2004 in the appomtrnent order In the appomtincnt orders issued by Janpad Panchayats in districts Jashpur and Raigarh theie was prOViSion of writing confidential reports also . , " , ' ‘Shri Rajeev Shrivastava Shri F S Khare Shri Santosh Bharat Shri Dincs RKTiwari Dr Rajesh Pandey, Shri ANBhakta Shri MKSinha Shri .7 'ANPandey and Shri Roop Naik learned counsel appearing for they v respective petitioners would contend that the appomtrnents of the petitioneis ' ‘- are govemed by the prov181ons of the Niyam 2004 wherein rule 11 prOVidcs ' r‘for extenSion of period of appomtinent as per the necess1ty and on assessmg i ' e the suitability of the person appomted on contract. In cases of appointments ' :- on the post of Accountants and Technical Assistants,” the.appointment orders ' provide for maintaining confidential reports and'assessing thesuitability of ‘- " ' the petitioners for further extenswn of term of appomtment Learned counsel ' ”would further submit that issue of fresh advertisement for contractual ' appomtinent is contrary to the prOViSions of rule ll of the Rules 2004 The z ' -' direction of the State Government on 27 8 2007 to 1ssue fresh advertisement ' for “appomtm‘ent is‘ bad m law The "contract'appomtee cannot be substituted ’ ’ . by another contract appomtee The action of the respondents is thus Violattve of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India It was further 101 contended that the. appointment of the petitioners was in accordance with the provisions ofvRules, 2004 by inviting applications and holding proper selection The appointment of the petitioners cannot be held as illegal being dehors the constitutlonal scheme of employment Shri Y S Thakur learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State Shrl ASKachhwaha Shrl Sumesh BaJa}, Shn Arun Sao Shn learned counsel appearlng for the State and respectlve Janpad Panchayats and Jlla Panchayats Shri S KBeriwal and Shri GaJendra Sahu learned counsel lor 'Rojgar Sahayks,»Tec’linical Assistants and Accountants are not governed by .any rule; The administrative instructions issued time to time would be applicable forappointments and other conditions of service The petitioner-s were appointed for the period of one year: Their appointment came- to. an end‘ .7 automatically after completion of a period of one year. The consideration of ‘ " ‘ . the petitioners for extens10n of term of the appomtrnent was not ignored as , . 10 marks weightage to the petitioners for havmg worked on contract ba31s on ' the post of Rolgar Sahayaks Accountants and Technical Ass1stants etc was _ given in the selection It was further contended that most of the petitioncis who are contract appomtees appomted earlier have already been selected and Havmg heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appendedthereto it'is evident thatthe appointment of the . petitioners on the post of ROJgar Sahayaks Technical Assistants .Accountants and others, were under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme to aSSist and prOVide support as necessary for’ the x effective implementation of the scheme; The Parliament enacted the National ' Rural Employment GuaranteeAct, 2005 (for short '“NREG ") t6 provide for the Unlon of Indla, per contra, would submit that‘the appomtment of the- they have been reappomted Thus the1r grievances do not surVive " 102‘ the enhancement of livelihood security of the households in rural areas. o'f the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. .It came into force on 7.9.2005. Secticin 4 of NREGA provides for Employment GuaranteevScheme for rural areas’to unemployed persons for not less than 100.days of guaranteed employment in a1 financial .- ’year to every household in the rural areas. covered under the'scherne. Section p ' .13 of NREGA‘ provides for appointment of Principal authorities for planning and implementation of scheme Sectlon 14 of NREGA prov1des that tie V _ Chief Executive Officer of the District Panchayat or the Collector of tie District or any other District Officer‘of the appropriate rank as the State G'ovemment may decide shall be designated as the District Programme Coordinator for the implementation of the schemes made under NREGA in the district The District Programme coordinator shall be responSible lor implementation of the schemes in ‘the diStrict in accordance with th provisions of NREGA andzrules framed thereunder. The functions of the District Programme-coordinator was also provided. Section 15 of NREGA r provides for appointment ofrProgramme Officer at intermediate level byv' appointing a person not below the rank of Block Development Officer with sUch qualifications as may be determined by the State Government. It further provides for functions and responsibilities of the Programme Officer. ResponSibilities of the Gram Panchayats were also prov1ded under section 16 ' of NREGA Section 18 prov1des for responsibility of the State Government in implementing the scheme wherein the State Government was also held ”liable to make available to the District Programme Coordinator and the ~ e Programme Officer necessary staff and technical support as may ber- ne'cessary for the effective implementation of the scheme. ‘ Thereafter,’the Central Government issued guidelines for implementation ”of ’ ' ‘- ’ theJschemes rln Clause. 2 2 1-(b) of the guidelines, it was provided that the ROJgar Guarantee Sahayaks or Gram ROJgar Sahayak by whatever name 1t v - ’may be called may be appomted 1n order to implement prOViSions of NREGA Under section 4(1) of the NREGA The State framed a scheme constituting State Level Chhattisgarh State Employment Guarantee Council , and other agenCies at different levels It was made clear in the clause 2 1 10 ’ of the State Scheme that 50% of the work shall be performed by the Gram 'Panchayat One ROJgar Sahayak for one or two gram panchayats may be '. appomted on contract bas1s by the Ch1ef Executwe Officer Janpad ' ' ' ' Panchayat on the basis of recommendation made by the Programme officer and approved by the District Coordinator The Governor of Chhattlsgarh 1n exerc1se of 1ts powers conferred by the ‘ ’prov1so t0 Artlcle 309' of the ‘Constltutlon of Indra, made Chhattlsgarh Cml Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2004. The rules provides for contract ‘ L ‘ appointments. Rule ll of the Rules, 2004 reads as under: “l 1. Period of Appointment ,— Normally contract appointment shall be nerely for a year. The department'may' take decision to extend the period of appointment as per thenecessity and 'Von assesstng the sultablhty of the person appornted on ' contract On expiry of the period of the Contract appomtment automatically contract appomtinent shall stand terminated ” 1,0. Accordingly, a Circular was issued on 21 O3 2006 wherein it was prov1dcd a that the term of appomtment for one year may be extended on the baSIS 01 , recommendation made bythe Programme Officer. Subsequently, one mow circular was issued on 19.12.2007 providing thatappointmeht of‘Roj’ga'r » Sahayaks in'accordance with following guidelines, which reads asunder: 103 macs E8 wgSé: a w E 3 mw>E m“ ~§oo<Eg m<~m a {Hwou mozan “mg“ E . O E ea. 0a“ H w a8 Ea“ 32a ag? oz @mB 8 : .H a €5§§vocom.mo.mm wugnw EuEomEgvw 2 E . ,mwm nHogEooa .Eckgg o wotwm a 5*mag HoaomEua 2t woEoSEBAEm2a EsE036 8&955 m“ H. .2 . _EE@@$%EEE%EEE E, _E%&E% EErmEvwgggwwKwEwcgwmww w%EEm.E%E%§EE%EEE _mEE%E§EE§§wE.E EEEmg££¢§§ Eggpfmg _ E§EE$EEE£E$$E %EE¢E%EEE%EE% _EEE&EEE§E rgEEEEEEgEEwAEV E EEEEE g awE E E £EEE tgE$E§m§¢EbwwEEE EE§E EE wE§§%?E%§%EE\E¢E ~ _EEEEE EE§¢§Emw$E®EEE$m§w§ E$mw$$EEEE$Em§¢EEE . Q EwEmEEEEEEEEEEEE gEEEE EEwogmEEEEEéEEREE :EEWN AEbwEEwVEwémsoON§Ewm§r§EEE _%E§E¥E .wwmwmmzmggnwwgooggg ggggawggmwgggoawg _E§£EEE~+SEE$EWWEE _%E$§E _EE_O§EEEEEE%%E§ _E.g§.§EEgE§wEEE a ma [NEE . EEEEEawEm?E§E§%E EgEEEEE.E,E%v (w: L g E E% E E E £EE Eérg w E - 105 ' 12. “6 wwww$mWWmm$mmgaw aéégaaréwW§ 7WWWWWWWWW 2004‘3ff31f%1=r¥m¥ ‘zksa'amaé’fm ' Conditlon No 7 and 8 of the appointment order inter alia,‘reads as under‘ ' “7 mmmmwmmmmmmw eggammhemwmmmmwmmwmael 8asWWWWatWzEWM/zowmW28072004 mwmmam(mm)mazoo4eamami” " ‘ v '13. ~ The above stated condmons were pr0v1ded 1n cases of Techmcal Asmstants and Accountant‘s only. There was .no such condition in the advertisement > issued for appointment on the post of Rojgar Sahayaks. Only in some .of the ' appointment orders of the Rojgar Sahayaks, the condition for extension of " term of appointment on the basis of confidential report and assessment made by the Programme Officers, was provrded not 1n all the appomtments 1-4. In View of the above stated statutory prov1510ns and various Circulars issued tune to time, it is crystal clear that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis for a period 0f one year. There was a provision for’extension of time of the contracton the basis of assessment of their performance as recommended by programme officer The terms and conditions of their appomtments are > government by prov1s1ons of the Rule 11 of the Rules 2004 The State - Government, by c1rcular dated 27.8.2007 (Annexure P/6 to W.P.(S) No. 7069 I of 2007) that all the appointments except'Assi’stant Proi’ect OffrCer Publicity ASSistants and Programme Officer shall be done at District level for a period of one year on contract ba51s It was made clear that all the appomtments i ' would be made after completionof the term of the appomtment of the petitioners. Therefore, no appointment was terminated by order of theState 'Government. before completion of one year. The appointment was made thereafter at District level as per Circular dated 19 12 2007 (Annexure A 6 to WP(S) No 7006/2007), wherein weightage of 10 marks was given for " S . l. .106 expérienceof awofking “as ‘Rojgar Sahayak, Accountants 'a'nd Téchnical' ’ Assistants. . Rule 11 of Rules 2004 prov1des for extensmn of appomtment on assessmg of ' ‘ the sultablhty of the person appomted on contract but the sald rules lhrther ” prov1des that on explry of the perlod of contract appomtment automatlcally ‘ shall stand termlnated The pet1t1oners have no rlght to contmue after thelr V appomtment came to an end The condmon that they W111 be cons1dered for - further extenswn on the ba31s of thelr performance has been satlsfled whlle ' grantlng 10 marks we1ghtage to all the ROJgar Sahayaks Accountants and -' Techmcal Assmtants who have obtamed expenence for workmg of one l year/6 months on contract appomtment It cannot be held that the actlon of f- the Government by 1nv1t1ng appl1cat10ns from all ehglble candldates for appomtment on the post of ROJgar Sahayak Accountants Technlcal :Ass1stants and others at d1str1ct level was contrary to prov1s1ons of Rule ll of ' , v the Rules 2004 and terms and condltlons of the appomtment 1f any Contentlon of learned counsel appearmg for the pet1t1oners that grantlng 10 percent welghtage to all the ROJgar Sahayaks, Accountants Techmcal V ' Assrstants and others who had worked for one year/6 months on contract ~ ‘ baSIS sacrlflces effrcxency 1n the performance If a contract appolntee has ‘ worked better than other contract appomtee on assessment the better performer would be granted more marks and have better chances of success than other contract appomtee appear to be attractlve but the ‘ontentlons deserve to be rejected on snnple ground that a better performer may obtam vmore marks underiother heads than the experlenc‘etGrantrng of 10 marks ' . : Weighta'ge to"on'e and all is neither Contradictory to the terms of the 5 conditions of the advertisement and appomtment order 1n the cases where- T ‘ ’ ' ; ' ever applicable nor prOVISions of rule 11 of the Rules 2004 No interference \ " < r 3 ’ ' 107 is Warranted in the policy decisidn of the Government as that does nOt appear to be arbltrary, unreasonable d1scr1m1natory or Violative of Amcle 14 and 21 x 4 of the Constltution of India The contentlon of learned counsel appearing tor the respondent authorities that the first appomtmenttof the petitloners on contract basis was not unifonn as some of the districts provided some conditions and some districts provided other conditions as is evident from the facts stated hereinabove. vThusLthe State Government took a- policy decision to have uniform system having reservation and roster system in accordance with law, merits acceptance. \ 17. The contention that the contract appointee cannot/be substituted by another Set of contract appointee isnot relevant to the facts of the case as there is no substitution of the contract appointees but the contract appointees are permitted to participate in the selection process and 10 marks has been given ' as. Weightage to them. ' 18. The Supreme Court 1n the matter of State ofHaryana and others v Pram - Smgh and others relied on by Mr Rapv Shrivastava was dealmg With the rappomtment of Class III andClass IV employees onadhoc basrs Without reference to the Public Service Commission or the Subordinate Services Selection Board Without adhering to the employment exchange requirements , Thus the appomtments made therem were dehors the constitutional scheme of employment Their Lordships, in that context held that the adhoc or contract appomtment not m accordance With the statutory rules and ’ regulations cannot be replaced by adhoc or temporary employees. They may be replaced only by regularly selected employees In the present case the petitioners were appomted in accordance With the rules through proper g selection and’the second appomtment pursuant to the advertisement under . . i (1992)4 SCC 118 0 18 challgnge was also in accord'dncé With law and the petitioners were entitled to 10 m'a11ks weightage fpr their experienees. .The case of Marathwada Agricultural University and ‘o'thers'vrMarathWada