No Mandamus for absorption of contractual employees in a new project absent statutory rights or comparative equivalence.

The petitioners were contractual employees working as Secretaries under the Integrated Watershed Management Programme on a fixed honorarium

On December 21, 2016, the respondents issued an order terminating their services on the ground that the specific project was being closed

The petitioners challenged this termination under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the project was still active at the time of filing

a successor project, the 'Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojna', was essentially the same program renamed to accommodate new recruits

The project under which petitioners worked officially concluded in March 2017

1. Whether the termination of contractual employees due to the closure of a project is violative of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the absorption of contractual employees into a new government project without proof of identical service conditions or a formal recruitment process

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

It relied on the principle that contractual employees do not have an inherent right to absorption in a new project unless they meet the specific qualification, eligibility, and recruitment criteria established by the fresh policy

the court applied the principle that relief for honorarium during a 'status quo' period requires evidentiary proof of actual service rendered

The court found that the petitioners failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the new 'Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojna' shared the same objectives, work area, or employment conditions as the closed project

It reasoned that even if the projects were similar, the court cannot bypass the recruitment process; petitioners must apply and meet eligibility criteria under the new policy for any appointment

Regarding back wages/honorarium, the court noted that although status quo orders were granted in some cases, there was no record of the petitioners actually working during that period

Consequently, any payment of honorarium was made contingent upon proving they were on duty until the project’s closure in March 2017

The court ordered that: (i) if petitioners prove they were working when the status quo was granted, they shall receive honorarium until March 2017; and (ii) petitioners may apply for the new project, and if they meet eligibility criteria and vacancies exist, the respondents must consider their cases in accordance with the law

The petitions were disposed of with these directions