HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WA Nos.780, 781, 834, 835 & 844 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) All these writ appeals raises common question of law and, therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts stated are:- The State Government issued a notification inviting applications for selection and appointment to the post of Ombudsmen for various districts in the State. The party-respondents herein and several others applied for the said post. A selection committee was constituted for the purposes of selecting the candidates for appointment and accordingly the selection committee so constituted recommended the names of the party-respondents for appointment as Ombudsmen for the respective districts. Pursuant thereto, the State Government vide orders issued in GO Ms.No.291, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (RD-II) Department, dated 10-8-2010 appointed Ombudsmen for 17 districts for a period of one year, extendable by another year. It is stated that as the period of one year was over, the party-respondents herein are sought to be discontinued. Aggrieved by the said action of the appellants herein, they filed writ petitions on the ground that when the scheme itself provides for appointment for a term of two years, extendable by one year, there was no justification on the part of the appellants in appointing them for a period of one year. It was their further case that extension of period of appointment by another year is a matter of course, unless the performances appraisal by the selection committee disclosed that the candidate is not eligible to be given extension. The learned single judge, by the impugned orders passed in WP Nos.24574, 25405, 26103, 26645 & 26923 of 2011 allowed the matters directing the authorities to continue the party-respondents herein for one more year. Hence, these writ appeals by the State against orders passed in the above noted WPs respectively. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for appellants 1 and 2, Sri M. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for 3rd appellant, Ms. M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the party- respondents and Dr.M.Ram Mohan Rao-party-in-person in WA No.834 of 2011. 4. Sri M. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the 3rd appellant has drawn our attention to GO Ms.No.291, dated 10-8-2010 wherein the period of appointment was only for one year and extension by one more year was subject to appraisal by the selection committee and the selection committee having appraised and assessed the performance found that the candidates are not fit for extension of period of appointment by another year. Leaned counsel further contended that the learned single judge erred in issuing positive directions to continue the party respondents for one more year. Learned counsel further stated that if they have any grievance they have to work out their remedies under common law remedy for damages and not by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the other hand, Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the party respondents and the party in person submitted that inasmuch as the order of appointment itself provides for extension by one more year, the same cannot be denied in the absence of any adverse appraisal reports and under those circumstances the learned single judge rightly considered the matters and allowed the writ petition and there is no error of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court. 5. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 27 of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, (for short, ‘the NREGA’), the Central Government directed the State Governments to set up the office of the Ombudsman in accordance with the instructions issued by order dated 7-9-2009 by the Joint Secretary (NREGA). The aim was to redress large number of grievances arising in regard to the implementation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and the schemes made thereunder, to strengthened the existing administrative machinery to secure the ends of justice. Clause 2.2.5 of the instructions on Ombudsman reads thus:- “2.2.5 The Ombudsman shall be appointed for a tenure of 2 years extendable by one year based on performance appraisal or till the incumbent attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. There shall be no reappointment. Performance appraisal shall be made by the Selection Committee. A copy of the performance appraisal report shall be furnished to the State Employment Guarantee Council.” 6. From a reading of the above clause it is clear that the appointment for the said post is for a period of two years extendable by one year depending upon the performance appraisal. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether a candidate appointed as Ombudsman has a right to insist on extension of his term of appointment by another year, when his initial appointment is only for a period of one year. 8. The nature of appointment of the party-respondents is contractual in nature for a fixed period reserving liberty to the selection committee to extend the period subject to appraisal of performance of the candidates. When once the nature of appointment is contractual in nature, the respondents cannot seek for enforcement of contractual obligations to continue them in services as Ombudsmen beyond one year. Principles of natural justice cannot be read into in matters of contractual obligations. Further, the party-respondents cannot approbate and reprobate as they did not raise any objection at the time of appointment fixing the period of tenure to one year, though the term of office as stated in GO Ms.No.291, dated 10-8-2010 is at variance with what is stated in the instructions on Ombudsman in Clause 2.2.5 issued by the Joint Secretary (NREGA), vide order dated 7-9-2009. The party- respondents could not demonstrate any violation of any indefeasible right, except pleading equity. Extension of period of appointment by the selection committee depends upon various aspects and it is within their realm and it is not for this Court to decide the suitability and continuity of the candidates in the office for another year when the selection committee after appraisal choose not to extend the period. We are of the considered view that the party-respondents are not entitled for the relief sought by them. If so advised the party-respondents can seek for damages under common law remedy and not extension by one more year as a matter of right. In the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the learned single judge in the above noted WPs are set aside and the writ appeals are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Madan B. Lokur, CJ _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: 18th November, 2011 Nrg. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WA Nos.780, 781, 834, 835 & 844 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) Dated November, 2011 HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED (Pre-delieved judgment in WA Nos.780, 781, 834, 835 & 844 of 2011 prepared by Hon’ble Shri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Submitted for lordship’s kind consideration and perusal.