Original application closed as infructuous where no surviving cause of action remains for adjudication.

The applicants (10 individuals) were appointed as Information Technology Managers and IT Assistants on a contractual basis by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) following walk-in interviews in June 2016.

Their initial one-year contracts were extended multiple times, with the final extension lasting until September 30, 2018, or until the engagement of new IT personnel through the 10th respondent agency (NICSI), whichever occurred earlier.

The applicants challenged the 1st respondent’s order dated August 10, 2018, which sought to replace them with a new set of contractual employees hired through the agency.

They contended that replacing one contractual employee with another is legally impermissible and sought to continue in their roles until regular appointments were made.

1. Whether the respondents could legally replace the existing contractual employees with another set of contractual staff hired through an external agency.

2. Whether the applicants were entitled to continue in service until the posts were filled by regular appointments.

The applicants relied on the established service law principle that one contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee.

They further cited the precedent of a status quo order granted by the Jaipur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in a similar matter, O.A. No. 291/429/2018.

However, the Tribunal did not formally apply these rules to the merits, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds.

The Tribunal did not conduct a detailed analysis of the merits of the contractual replacement policy.

Upon the matter being taken up for hearing, the counsel for the applicants submitted that the Original Application (OA) had become infructuous and that no further issues survived for adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted this submission without examining the legality of the 1st respondent's order or the rights of the contractual employees to continued service.

No directions were issued regarding the prayer to set aside the order dated August 10, 2018, or the request for continued employment, and no order was made as to costs.