Case at a Glance
The appellant was appointed in February 2021 as Project Implementing Officer on contract by the Society for Entrepreneurship Development (SoFED), Tripura, for an externally funded project, and her contract was extended repeatedly. In 2025 her duties were reassigned, her tenure was extended only up to 25 September 2025, and the post was then advertised afresh on contract. The single judge had dismissed her writ, treating her as outsourced. The Division Bench held that she was SoFED’s direct contractual employee, that SoFED is a State instrumentality, that her disengagement rested on a prejudiced appraisal and stale material without a hearing, and that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee. It ordered reinstatement with full back wages and ₹15,000 costs.
On 10 February 2021 SoFED appointed the appellant as Project Implementing Officer on an 11-month contract at a gross of ₹80,000 per month. Her work was praised in a certificate of 16 August 2022 and her contract was extended on 4 December 2023 and 4 December 2024. Office orders of 14 May 2025 gave her project-management and monitoring duties. On 28 August 2025 those duties were reassigned without reasons, she was asked to assist a junior officer, and a memo of 25 September 2025 extended her tenure only up to that date. She complained of humiliation and gender discrimination on 30 September 2025.
On 5 November 2025 SoFED issued a recruitment notification to fill the same post on contract. The single judge dismissed her writ petition on 18 May 2026, treating her as an outsourced employee. She filed this writ appeal.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a State society disengage a long-serving contractual officer on the basis of an adverse appraisal and old material without a hearing, and then fill the same post with another contractual appointee?
A Contract Post Cannot Be Recycled
The Division Bench rejected the outsourcing plea, holding on the basis of the appointment letter, certificates and office orders that she was “a contractual employee engaged by SoFED/respondent No.5”. SoFED was “undoubtedly an instrumentality of State under Art.12”, so the writ was maintainable. The performance appraisal relied on had been prepared by a junior who stood to benefit and appeared possibly backdated; the Court treated it as a “deliberate attempt” to create grounds for disengagement, and refused to rely on 2012–2013 material, calling it stale and evidence of malice.
Relying on Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 08 SC CK 0040, Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 08 SC CK 0043 and Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, (1984) 01 SC CK 0004, the Court looked behind the form of the order and held that stigmatic allegations required a hearing under the Project Operation Manual, which was not given. Following UP Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of UP, (2026) 02 SC CK 1748, it held that “a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee”. It found that the respondents acted “arbitrarily, unreasonably, without any bona fides”, and distinguished Municipal Council, Nandyal v. K. Jayaram and Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, relied on by the single judge.
What the Court Actually Held
- The appellant was a direct contractual employee of SoFED, not an outsourced worker, and SoFED is a State instrumentality amenable to writ jurisdiction.
- A disengagement based on a prejudiced appraisal and stale material, carrying stigma, required a hearing; its form as non-extension did not save it.
- A contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee; the fresh notification of 5 November 2025 was quashed to that extent.
- The single judge’s judgment was set aside; the appellant must be reinstated forthwith as Project Implementing Officer with full back wages, and respondent 5 must pay ₹15,000 costs within four weeks.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Lakhs of people work on contract in government projects and societies; the ruling protects them from being swapped for new contract hires.
- It shows courts will look past the label of ‘non-renewal’ when the real basis is stigmatic.
- It confirms that registered societies functioning as State instrumentalities are answerable in writ jurisdiction.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Contractual Employees
- If your post is re-advertised on contract after your disengagement, you can challenge it.
- Keep appointment letters, extensions, certificates and office orders to prove a direct relationship.
- Demand a hearing where disengagement rests on adverse remarks.
For Counsel
- Rely on UP Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association against contract-for-contract replacement.
- Use Swati Priyadarshini and Anoop Jaiswal to unmask stigmatic orders.
- Establish Article 12 status of the employing society for maintainability.
Key Takeaways
- No replacing one contract employee with another.
- Stigmatic disengagement needs a hearing.
- Stale old material cannot justify current action.
- Reinstatement with full back wages and costs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a government society end my contract and hire someone else on contract for the same post?
According to this judgment, no. Following the Supreme Court, the Tripura High Court held that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee.
Was she treated as an outsourced worker?
The single judge did so, but the Division Bench held that she was a direct contractual employee of SoFED based on her appointment letter, certificates and office orders.
What relief did she get?
Reinstatement as Project Implementing Officer forthwith with full back wages, quashing of the fresh contract recruitment notification to that extent, and ₹15,000 costs.
Conclusion
The judgment protects contractual staff from a common pattern: duties taken away, a short final extension, and the same post advertised to a new hire. Where the real basis is an adverse, unheard assessment, the court will set it aside.
Practical takeaway: Contractual employees of State bodies facing non-renewal followed by re-advertisement should challenge both the disengagement and the fresh notification, and insist on a hearing where adverse material is used.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com