Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 726 (GAU)

Yomto Lollen v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2009-10-20

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2009
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The petitioners, numbering 8 (eight), are serving as District Programme Manager ('DPM' in short) under NRHM, Arunachal Pradesh on contractual basis. An interview was conducted on 11.8.2006 for selection and appointment of District Programme Manager ('DPM' in short). The petitioners appeared in the said interview and were selected and accordingly they were appointed to the aforesaid post vide order dated 18.8.2006. The petitioners were appointed on contract basis under RCH-II Programme on a consolidated monthly pay of Rs. 15,000/- per month purely on probation till 31.3.2007. Their services would be governed by the terms of reference and the letter of undertaking signed by the staff at the time of appointment. On the expiry of aforesaid of appointment, the services of the petitioners were extended for another one year i.e. till 30.6.2009. Before 30.6.2009, the petitioners were served with a letter for re-interview for extension of contractual services vide impugned letter dated 10.6.2009. 3. Mr. Ete, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no provision for holding re-interview for extension of contractual service inasmuch as they appeared in the interview held earlier and they were selected for appointment to the post of DPMs. For the purpose of extension of service, according to Mr. Ete, the authorities concerned may take into consideration the report of the "Performance Appraisal Board" prepared on the basis of inputs received from district concerned and if the report is not satisfactory, the competent authority may, at any time, terminate the contractual service by giving one-month notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice. This has been provided in the appointment letter itself which reads as follows: The appointment is purely contractual and is liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason(s) therefore, by giving one month notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice. 4. Mr. This has been provided in the appointment letter itself which reads as follows: The appointment is purely contractual and is liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason(s) therefore, by giving one month notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice. 4. Mr. Ete, learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the appointment order clearly indicates that during the period of probation, and in the subsequent years for extension of service, the performance of the appointee would be closely monitored and assessed on the basis of the inputs received from the districts concerned by the "Performance Appraisal Board" comprising with the Mission Director (NHRAM) as Chairman, State Programme Manager (NHRM) and Finance & Personnel Manager (NHRM) as members. Although, the petitioners questioned the holding of re-interview for some obvious reasons, they have appeared in the said re-interview as they have already served more than three years as DPM and they want to continue in the service. 5. Mr. Nabam, learned senior Government Advocate, submits that the re-interview was conducted with an intention to extend the contractual services and to utilize their experiences in the field and as such, the holding of re-interview cannot be questioned. Mr. Nabam has placed a copy of the order bearing No. SCOVA-2005/60 dated 6th May, 2009 issued by the Mission Director (NRHM) whereby the contractual services of Mr. Yomto Lollen (petitioner No. 1) was extended with effect from 2nd April, 2009 to 30th June, 2009 on certain conditions. It has been mentioned in the said order that the further extension of contractual service beyond 30th June, 2009 will be considered based on re-interview of contractual DPMs in terms of written test and viva-voce. This condition has been accepted by the petitioner No. 1 and also by the co-petitioners, to whom also similar orders were served. Since they have accepted the aforesaid condition in accepting the extension of contractual service, they are bound to abide by the same and they are debarred from questioning the legality in holding the re-interview. It has also been submitted by Mr. Nabam that since the petitioners have already appeared in the re-interview, they have submitted themselves before the authorities and they are now debarred from questioning the holding of the re-interview. At the same time, it has been disclosed by Mr. It has also been submitted by Mr. Nabam that since the petitioners have already appeared in the re-interview, they have submitted themselves before the authorities and they are now debarred from questioning the holding of the re-interview. At the same time, it has been disclosed by Mr. Nabam that the districts concerned have already submitted their report/inputs in respect of the petitioners. 6. It is admitted position that the petitioners' services have been extended till 30.6.2009 and the performance of the petitioners are required to be assessed as contemplated in the appointment orders. There is no contemplation of re-interview of the contractual appointees for extension of their services. What is contemplated in the appointment order is that the performance of the appointees would be monitored/assessed on the basis of the inputs received from the districts concerned. As submitted by the learned senior Government Advocate, if the inputs have been received from the districts concerned, the Performance Appraisal Board has to assess the same and take a decision in regard to extension of service of the contractual appointees or to take appropriate steps for their removal on the basis of the Appraisal Board. 7. It appears that the respondent authorities have taken the courses of re-interview as well as assessment of the performance of the petitioners. The question of interview, not re-interview, would arise only after a decision is taken by the authorities concerned for not extending the service of the contractual appointees. The respondent authorities are to first complete the process of appraisal/assessment of the performances of the contractual appointees as contemplated in the appointment order itself. 8. In view of the above, the impugned action of the respondent authorities in holding re-interview for extension of contractual service beyond 30.6.2009 is not sustainable and as such, the impugned letter/communication dated 10.6.2009 is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. However, it is made clear that the "Performance Appraisal Board" shall assess/appraise the inputs received from the districts concerned as per the terms of reference and shall take an appropriate decision within a reasonable period of time taking into consideration that the extended period of services of the petitioners has already expired on 30.6.2009. 9. Needless to say that the petitioners shall be entitled to get/receive salary from 1.7.2009 till final decision is taken in the aforesaid matter, provided they are actually serving in the post. 10. 9. Needless to say that the petitioners shall be entitled to get/receive salary from 1.7.2009 till final decision is taken in the aforesaid matter, provided they are actually serving in the post. 10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.