Contractual employees cannot be replaced by other contractual engagements against policy-based tenure protections.

The 37 petitioners were empanelled and appointed as Executive Assistants on a contractual basis between 2013 and 2018 through the Bihar Prashasnik Sudhar Mission Society.

They were posted in the District Health Society, Madhepura.

Following a state policy resolution dated 17.09.2018, contractual appointments were to continue until the scheme ended, regular appointments were made, or the employee reached superannuation.

However, via letter dated 15.11.2021, the State Health Society decided to outsource data management work to a private agency, M/s Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 11).

Consequently, the petitioners' services were terminated and they were sent back to the District Panel/Establishment Deputy Collector by orders dated 08.12.2021 and 09.12.2021.

1. Whether the termination of the petitioners' contractual services and their replacement by a private outsourcing agency was legally sustainable in light of the state's resolution regarding the tenure of Executive Assistants

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement or engagement in other government establishments based on the General Administration Department's policy

General Administration Department (GAD), Government of Bihar Resolution No. 12534 dated 17.09.2018 and Resolution No. 1003 dated 22.01.2021, which established that contractual appointments of Executive Assistants should be made until the age of 60 or the end of the scheme.

Memo No. 2021 dated 26.06.2019, by which the State Health Society formally adopted the GAD policy.

Principle of parity with "similarly situated persons" who had received judicial relief in related matters, such as Piyush Kumar vs. The State of Bihar Ors. (CWJC no. 17633 of 2024).

The Court examined the petitioners' claim that their tenure was protected by the 2018 GAD policy, which prescribed service until age 60 or scheme completion unless performance was unsatisfactory.

The State Health Society argued that the initial appointment letters specified the roles were purely temporary and terminable without notice, and that the shift to respondent no. 11 was a subsequent policy decision.

The Court observed that the state’s own resolutions created a framework for the continuation of such staff.

Rather than quashing the outsourcing contract, the Court found it appropriate to direct the District Magistrate to evaluate the petitioners' rights against the prevailing government policy and the treatment of other similarly situated contractual employees who had sought relief in the High Court.

The petitioners were directed to file individual representations within four weeks to the District Magistrate, Madhepura; the District Magistrate is ordered to decide these representations within three months, specifically considering the GAD policy decisions and the outcome of cases involving similarly situated persons.

Relief was granted to ensure administrative review of the termination in light of state policy.