Contractual employees cannot claim absorption in new government projects without meeting eligibility and recruitment criteria.

The petitioners were employed as Secretaries on a contractual basis with a fixed honorarium of Rs. 3,500/- under the Integrated Watershed Management Programme

By an order dated 21.12.2016, the respondents terminated the petitioners' services on the grounds that the project was slated for closure in March 2017

The petitioners challenged this termination, alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice and asserting that the State had merely rebranded the project as the "Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojna" to accommodate other individuals

Status quo orders were granted in some petitions during the pendency of the litigation

1. Whether the termination of contractual employees due to the closure of a government project is legally sustainable and whether such employees have an automatic right to be absorbed into a subsequent project

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to back wages or honorarium for the period covered by the court's status quo order until the natural conclusion of the project

The court primarily applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the scope of judicial review in contractual employment and policy matters

It relied on the principle that contractual employees do not have an inherent right to absorption or reinstatement once a specific project ends, unless they meet the eligibility, qualification, and recruitment criteria of the new policy or project

The court applied the principle of administrative law that prevents the issuance of a writ of mandamus for absorption in the absence of evidence showing identical service conditions, work area, and qualifications between an old and a new government scheme

The court found that the petitioners failed to place evidence on record demonstrating that the "Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojna" was identical to the previous project in terms of objectives, employment conditions, or nature of work

The court held it could not exercise its powers under Article 226 to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners without specific details of the new project's requirements

Regarding the status quo orders, the court noted a lack of evidence confirming the petitioners were actually performing duties on the date the orders were issued

The court determined that any claim for honorarium must be contingent upon factual verification of their work status during the subsistence of the project until March 2017

It held that petitioners may submit representations to the competent authority to prove they were working when the status quo was granted; if verified, the respondents must consider paying honorarium until March 2017

The petitioners were granted liberty to apply for positions in the new project, with the respondents directed to consider their cases in accordance with law, provided they meet the eligibility criteria and vacancies exist