JUDGMENT : The State Government has filed this present appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.07.2019 in WP.Nos.11604-11607/2013 [K.V.Mudligiraiah & Others vs. The Tumkur Zilla Panchayath and Others]. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondents before this Court in pursuant to a notification dated 04.04.2011 issued by the Director, Karnataka State Water and Sanitation Mission applied for the post of Coordinator at Taluk and Hobli levels. They were appointed on 21.04.2011. The appointments were made in order to implement a scheme framed by the Government of India under the National Rural Drinking Water Programme (hereinafter referred in short as ‘NRPWP’) and their services were put to an end by order dated 25.10.2012. The reasons assigned for discontinuing their services to an end was for the NRDWP scheme under which the Coordinators were working came to an end and another scheme was introduced by the Government of India i.e. Jal Jeevan Mission (hereinafter referred in short as ‘JJM’). As the scheme itself came to an end, the services of respondents were itself continued. A writ petition i.e. WP.No.11604-11607/2013 was preferred before this Court and no interim order was granted and finally, an order was passed on 08.07.2019 allowing the writ petition directing the respondents therein to permit the petitioners therein to serve as Coordinators under the scheme introduced by the Central Government. This Court has directed the Commissioner, Rural Drinking Water Department to file the affidavit in respect of both the schemes and he has filed an affidavit clarifying that the earlier scheme is not in force and new scheme JJM is in existence. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the existing components/activities of the old scheme are sub-subsumed under the JJM. It has been further stated that the JJM is being implemented for the purpose of providing drinking water for each and every house in the villages. 3. The learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of WP.Nos.58147-58148/2013 [Santhosh Kumar H.S. and another vs. State of Karnataka and others] wherein similar issue was involved and has allowed the petition. The judgment delivered in the case of Santhosh Kumar (supra) was subjected to judicial scrutiny before the Division Bench and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 21.08.2019 has set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The judgment delivered in the case of Santhosh Kumar (supra) was subjected to judicial scrutiny before the Division Bench and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 21.08.2019 has set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The order passed by the Division Bench in paragraphs-2 to 12 reads as under: “2. Heard the learned Principal Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By consent, taken up for hearing. 3. The first appellant published an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates to be appointed as Block Resource Coordinators and Cluster Resource Coordinators for conducting various activities under the Scheme launched by the Government of India. 4. The respondents filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge challenging the action of the State Government which had the effect of directing the respondents to work under the NGOs appointed by the State Government. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held thus: “Be that as it may, in case if it is mentioned in the scheme to do so, it is for the respondents to do it as per the notification. Unless and until the scheme permits, it is impermissible for the respondents to create NGOs for the purpose of handing over the workers for service and maintenance. By virtue of the scheme introduced by the Union Government, these workers are permitted to work under the said Scheme and not under NGOs. The petitioners to work under the Scheme under which they have been appointed as long as the scheme continues. The payment, guarantee, terms and conditions are strictly and purely in accordance with the scheme introduced by the Union Government only.” 5. The submission of the learned Principal Government Advocate is that the employment of the respondents was terminated on 23rd April 2012. His second submission is that under the Scheme itself it is provided that the same will be implemented by certain NGOs. He would, therefore, submit that the respondents have no right as their employment was terminated on 23rd April 2012 and therefore, there is nothing wrong with the direction issued to them to work under the NGOs. He submitted that in any event, as the respondents were appointed on the basis of a contract, the direction to continue them so long as the Scheme continues was uncalled for. 6. He submitted that in any event, as the respondents were appointed on the basis of a contract, the direction to continue them so long as the Scheme continues was uncalled for. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order. She invited our attention to the order dated 4th April 2011 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Her submission is that the services of the respondents were found to be necessary and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in issuing the direction which he has issued in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions. The only submission made by the learned Principal Government Advocate before the learned Single Judge as recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned order reads thus: “Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that their initial appointment was for one year and thereafter the said scheme was brought under this scheme, under which they have to work under NGOs. Hence, there is a justifiable reason for engaging the workers to work under NGOs. Therefore, the petitions may be dismissed.” 8. The appellants did not make out a case before the learned Single Judge that the employment of the respondents was already terminated. The order dated 4th April 2011 issued by the Government of Karnataka shows that the post held by the respondents were intended to be filled in only for a period of one year which period could be extended, if found necessary. 9. The appellants have now raised a contention that the employment of the respondents was terminated. Such a factual contention was not raised before the learned Single Judge. The logical consequence of this is that the employment of the respondents continued. All that the learned Single Judge has held is that so long as the employment of the respondents continues, they cannot be forced to work under the NGOs. In fact, that was precisely the second prayer made in the writ petition filed by the respondents. 10. The first prayer in the writ petition of the respondents was that the employment of the respondents be continued till the completion of the Scheme. The learned Single Judge has issued a direction that the appointment of the respondents will continue so long as the Scheme continues. 10. The first prayer in the writ petition of the respondents was that the employment of the respondents be continued till the completion of the Scheme. The learned Single Judge has issued a direction that the appointment of the respondents will continue so long as the Scheme continues. 11 Though no fault can be found with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the respondents cannot be forced to work under the NGOs, the direction to continue the employment of the respondents till the conclusion of the Scheme cannot be justified inasmuch as in view of the order dated 4th April 2011, the initial service period of one year of the respondents can be extended only if the concerned authority finds it necessary. Essentially, the appointment of the respondents is temporary in nature. Therefore, to that extent, the direction contained in paragraph 6 of the impugned order will have to be clarified. The respondents cannot claim continuation of the employment as a matter of right till the continuation of the Scheme. 12. Hence, we pass the following order: (i) Subject to modification made of paragraph 6 of the impugned order as discussed above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. (ii) The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (iii) The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.” In the light of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Division Bench, the question of continuance of the respondents before this Court in the present appeal does not arise. They have engaged under a scheme which has come to an end and they are no longer in service. It is true that they have worked under earlier scheme for almost a year that too in the year 2011-12 as they were appointed on 21.04.2011 but that itself does not entitle them for appointment under some other scheme on contractual basis as the work under the new scheme i.e. JJM has already been entrusted to a Non-Governmental Organisation. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.