Contractual scheme workers have no enforceable right to continuation after the scheme ends.

The Government of India approved, by Office Memorandum dated 3 January 2011, the contractual engagement of Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) in identified districts for three years, with declining Central financial assistance and an expectation that the State would create and regularly fill requisite posts to maintain continuity thereafter.

Pursuant to the scheme, the petitioners were selected and engaged during 2012–2013 as Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) on contractual terms, generally for a fixed period ending 31 March 2013, at a monthly remuneration of Rs. 6,000.

Their contracts were subsequently extended, but the Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission issued a circular dated 26 February 2014 directing that their contracts not be renewed beyond 31 March 2014.

An interim order dated 16 October 2015 directed that the petitioners be allowed to continue, subject to approval, sanction of the project implementation plan, availability of finance, and satisfactory work and conduct.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the State asserted that the original scheme had been discontinued and that regular recruitment was to be undertaken under the 2018 Service Rules, with proposed amendments and limited weightage for contractual experience.

Whether the circular dated 26 February 2014, prohibiting renewal of the petitioners’ contractual engagement as Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) beyond 31 March 2014, was liable to be quashed?

Whether the petitioners possessed a legally enforceable right to continue on contract until regular appointments were made, on the basis of the 2011 Office Memorandum and the subsequent governmental communications?

Whether the High Court could issue a mandamus directing the State to continue the petitioners or fill vacant Health Worker (Male) posts despite the State’s decision to discontinue the scheme and proceed with regular recruitment?

The Court applied the settled principles governing issuance of mandamus under Article 226: a petitioner must establish a subsisting legal right and a corresponding public or statutory duty capable of judicial enforcement.

Contractual or scheme-based engagement ordinarily confers no right to regularisation, absorption, or continuation beyond the contractual or scheme period, particularly where the scheme has been discontinued and no rule provides otherwise.

In Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, Assam, (2009) 6 SCC 611, the Supreme Court held that employees appointed under a continuing scheme should ordinarily be continued while the scheme remains in force, but such appointments remain co-terminous with the scheme and do not create security of tenure or a right to regularisation.

The Court also relied on Subha B. Nair v. State of Kerala, (2008) 7 SCC 210, and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479, for the principle that the State has discretion whether to fill vacancies, subject to the requirements of bona fides, non-arbitrariness, and non-discrimination.

Ganesh Digamber Jumbhrunkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 Supreme (SC) 1785, was relied upon for the proposition that long contractual service does not create a vested right to absorption or regular appointment.

The Court also relied on Prashant Shukla v. State of U.P., 2021 (12) ADJ 145, regarding the necessity of a legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right for mandamus.

The Court held that the petitioners’ appointments were expressly contractual, temporary, and linked to the scheme; the appointment orders and agreements neither created substantive posts nor conferred any right to regularisation, absorption, or continuation beyond the stipulated period.

Although the 2011 Office Memorandum contemplated an initial three-year period and encouraged States to create regular posts, it did not itself confer an enforceable right upon the petitioners to remain engaged after the scheme or Central financial assistance had ended.

The principle in Mohd. Abdul Kadir was distinguishable because that case concerned continuation while the relevant scheme remained operational; here, the State had taken a conscious decision to discontinue the scheme and proceed under the 2018 recruitment framework.

The subsequent communications of July 2014 did not create a statutory or vested right to indefinite contractual engagement.

Nor could the existence of vacant posts or the continuing importance of health-related work compel the State to fill those posts or retain the petitioners, since decisions regarding implementation of schemes, budgetary allocation, feasibility, and recruitment fell primarily within the executive domain absent arbitrariness or discrimination.

Consequently, there was no corresponding legal duty on the respondents and no subsisting legal right capable of enforcement by mandamus.

It held that the petitioners, being contractual workers engaged under a scheme that the State had discontinued, had no enforceable right to continue as Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) until regular selections were completed.

The circular dated 26 February 2014 was not liable to be quashed, and no mandamus could issue directing continuation, payment of contractual remuneration, appointment against vacant posts, or implementation of the earlier scheme.

Accordingly, the leading and connected writ petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit.