Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench reaffirmed that contractual appointments made as an interim arrangement can be replaced by candidates selected through regular recruitment.
Share
KOHIMA — The Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench has held that contractual employees engaged pending regular recruitment through the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) do not acquire any vested right to continue in service or seek regularisation merely because of length of service.
Delivering a common judgment in two writ petitions filed by terminated contractual Junior Soil Conservation Officers (JSCOs), the court dismissed their challenge to the termination of service and reaffirmed that contractual appointments made as an interim arrangement can be replaced by candidates selected through regular recruitment.
The case arose from petitions filed by two contractual appointees of the Soil and Water Conservation department, who had sought reinstatement after their services were terminated following declaration of NPSC recruitment results.
According to court records, the petitioners were appointed as JSCOs on June 3, 2016 on a contractual basis against existing sanctioned posts under the department. Their appointment orders stated that the engagement was purely contractual and would remain valid for six months or until regular appointment was made through the NPSC, whichever occurred earlier.
Although initially intended as a temporary arrangement, the petitioners continued in service for around seven years.
The matter later became the subject of public controversy in 2024 after the Combined Technical Association of Nagaland (CTAN) staged protests and demanded termination of the appointments, alleging that the appointments were illegal.
Also read: Nagaland: CTAN, NNQF demand NPSC recruitment for 129 faculty posts
Nagaland Forest Guard exam row: CTAN seeks re-exam, department admits lapses
Subsequently, the petitioners were served termination notices on March 12, 2024. The notices cited declaration of NPSC results on March 6, 2024 as the reason for discontinuation of service, while their contractual engagement stood terminated with retrospective effect from March 7, 2024.
Challenging the decision, the petitioners approached the court seeking quashing of the termination order and reinstatement into service.
The court also noted that this was not the first legal attempt by the petitioners. Prior to the termination dispute, they had already filed another writ petition in 2023 seeking a direction to the authorities to consider their cases for regularisation, which remained pending for adjudication.
Examining the legality of the termination order, the court held that the petitioners had failed to establish any ground warranting judicial interference.
The judgment stated that the petitioners “have not been able to show any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality in the impugned termination order”.
The court observed that contractual employees in government service do not enjoy the same status or protections as regular or permanent employees and that their rights are primarily governed by the terms of appointment, applicable service rules and constitutional protections available under Articles 14 and 16.
At the same time, the court clarified that contractual employees are not entirely without protection and that courts may intervene in cases where termination is arbitrary.
It observed that judicial interference remains available if termination is mala fide, stigmatic or punitive in nature, or where contractual procedures are violated.
However, the court found that none of those conditions existed in the present case.
Referring specifically to the appointment conditions accepted by the petitioners, the court observed that they had joined service with full knowledge that the appointments were temporary and linked to future recruitment through the NPSC.
“In view of the above discussion, it is clear that a contractual employee engaged, pending regular recruitment through the Public Service Commission, does not acquire any vested right to continue in service or seek regularisation merely by length of service,” the court observed.
The judgment further stated that the petitioners had served only seven years on a contractual basis and that such appointees could legitimately be replaced by regularly selected candidates.
“The petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right to be regularised or to continue in the post of JSCO,” the court added.
The court also addressed the petitioners’ submission that four posts of JSCO remained vacant in the department and therefore they should be allowed to continue.
Rejecting this contention, the court referred to submissions made by the state respondents showing that out of 44 sanctioned JSCO posts, 34 had already been filled through recruitment conducted by the NPSC.
Further, an RTI reply dated October 6, 2025 showed that six of the remaining 10 posts had already been requisitioned to the commission.
As for the remaining four vacancies, the respondents informed the court that those posts became vacant due to promotions of four JSCOs between February and September 2025.
Finding no merit in the petitions, the court dismissed both cases and passed no order as to costs.