WP(C) 4016/2010 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI The decision of the respondent authorities in issuing the advertisement notice dated 19.12.2008 published in the Assam Tribune calling for applications from eligible candidates for filling up 140 posts of Accredited Engineers (Diplo ma Holder) on contractual basis under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Sc heme (for short NREGS) by ignoring the contractual appointments of the two petit ioners is called into question in this case. Heard Mr G Alam, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms Rekha Chackraborty, the learned State counsel, appearing for the State responde nts. The petitioners are admittedly Diploma Holders in Civil Engineering. In the year 2008, the respondent authorities published an advertisement dated 19.1 2.2008 calling for applications from eligible candidates for engagement of Accre dited Engineers on contract basis under the District Programme Coordinator, for implementation of the Scheme known as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Sc heme under all Development Blocks/Garon Panchayat areas of Kamrup District. The academic qualification for the posts of Accredited Engineers prescribed therein is Diploma in Engineering. The post is to carry a fixed monthly remuneration @ Rs. 4,000/- pm. In response to the advertisement, the petitioners applied for the posts and were interviewed and their names found a place in the select list for each DRDA under the Block of the concerned districts. The order of contract ual engagement was thereafter issued by the respondent No. 4 of the respective c oncerned districts subject to execution of the terms of contractual engagement. The petitioners were thereupon placed at the disposal of various Block Developm ent Officer under the concerned districts. The contractual appointments of the petitioners were initially made for a period of six months i.e. up to 28.02.2010 , but their engagements were extended from time to time till 12.07.2010. Though respondents authorities used to assure the petitioners that their services woul d be extended, they were shocked to learn that the respondent authorities publis hed the advertisement dated 19.5.2010 in the Assam Tribune in its issue dated 21 .05.2010 calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up 1100 posts of Accredited Engineers (Diploma Holders) on contractual basis under the MGNREG A with a fixed remuneration of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioners by this advertisem ent were apprehensive of the fact that the advertisement was issued as a device for replacing them by another batch of contractual appointees. They also stumbl ed upon the letter dated 7.5.2010 issued by the respondent No. 2 in which it was mentioned that henceforth the Accredited Engineers would be made by Civil Engin eering (Diploma Holders) and the posts to 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 te rminating the contractual appointment of normal Accredited Engineers on selectio n of the Diploma Holders. Aggrieved by this, this writ petition is filed by the petitioners for appropriate relief. The writ petition is contested by the resp ondent authorities by filing their affidavit-in-opposition. On perusal of the a ffidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities through the responden ts No. 3 and 4, it is obvious that their case is based upon Clause 7 of the cont ract executed between them and the respondents, which stipulated the appointment to be purely contractual appointments for the period in question and that the p etitioners should not claim for appointment or regularisation or for extension o f their services. It is also stated by the answering respondents that the age b ar for the Accredited Engineers is 18-35 years as on 01.10.2010 and that the pet itioners have already crossed the age limit as of now and are therefore, no lo nger eligible for contractual appointments. These are the main contentions of t he respondent authorities. Mr G Alam, the learned counsel for the petitioners s ubmits that once the petitioners were duly selected by a Selection Committee in accordance with the advertisement on contractual basis, so long as the scheme co ntinues for which they are appointed, their services cannot be discontinued exce pt in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. In support of this contenti on, he relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Mohd Abdul Kadir vs. Director General of Police, reported in (2009)6 SCC 611. On the other hand, Ms R Chackr aborty, the learned State counsel while defending the impugned action of the res pondent authorities contends that the appointments of the petitioners were purel y on contractual basis, their contractual engagements could be terminated at any time even without assigning any reason 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 grievance to make. She, therefore, submits th at the writ petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. As per the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir (supra)l, i f temporary or ad hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particul ar project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of persons empl oyed under the project or scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/ces sation of the project or scheme. On completion 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 any right to continue in service, nor seek r egularisation in some other project or service. In the instant case, the petiti oners are not seeking regularisation of their services. All they seek to do is to allow them to continue in their services till the closure of the Scheme, name ly, MGNREGA. There is no dispute at the Bar that the scheme under the MGNREGA i s 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 i n accordance with the selection process prescribed by the Scheme, there is no re ason why those appointed under the Scheme should not be continued as long as the Scheme continues. Ad hoc appointment under the Scheme are normally conterminou s with the Scheme (subject to earlier termination either on medical or disciplin ary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on attainment of normal age of ret irement). Irrespective of length of their ad hoc service or the Scheme, they wi ll not be entitled to regularisation, nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to regular employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus held th at in view of continuing the Scheme, ex-serviceman employed after undergoing sel ection process need not be subject to agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitud e of annual termination and re-engagement, merely because their appointment is t ermed as ad hoc. The process of termination and re-appointment every year shoul d be avoided and appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, 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 continues, the petitioners cannot be given march ing orders. In the result, the impugned 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 7) and the advertisement notice da ted 19.5.2010 (Annexure 8) are hereby quashed. Consequently, the respondent aut horities are directed to continue the contractual engagement of the petitioners with the fixed remuneration of Rs. 10,000/- pm till the Scheme (MGNREGA) is disc ontinued in accordance with law. The parties are however, directed to bear thei r respective costs.