Judgment & Order (CAV):

1. Heard Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3148/2023 and WP(C) No. 6140/2021; Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2831/2021; and Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 470/2020 and WP(C) No. 577/2020. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the NRC and Mr. A. K. Dutta, learned CGC for the Union of India.

2. By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners, who were appointed as Circle Project Supervisors, Junior Assistants and Helpers on contractual basis under the National Register of Citizens (NRC) Updation Project in the State of Assam, have assailed the notices/orders of discontinuation from services by the respondent authorities. The petitioners have also prayed for regularization/ absorption in the sanction posts of their respective grades as the NRC updation process is a continuous process as per Rule 11 of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003.

3. Having considered that the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar on facts and law, same were taken up analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. In WP(C) No. 3148/2023, the petitioners were engaged as Circle Project Supervisors on contractual basis after due selection in terms of Rule 5.4 of the National Register of Citizens Updation Project (NRCP) Service Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “NRCP Service Regulations, 2014”, in short). In WP(C) No. 6140/2021 & WP(C) No. 577/2020, the petitioners were appointed as Helpers which constitute the Grade-IV cadre of the NRC updation process, in terms of the said NRCP Service Regulations, 2014. In WP(C) No. 470/2020 & WP(C) No. 2831/2021, the petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants, in terms of the said NRCP Service Regulations, 2014.

5. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is that pursuant to advertisements issued in the year 2014 for engagement of various categories of contractual posts under the NRC Updation Project in the State of Assam, the petitioners had participated in the selection process and were engaged as Circle Project Supervisors, Junior Assistants and Helpers on contractual basis in different districts and circles of the State. Their engagements were governed by the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014, framed by the Government of Assam, which prescribe the method of selection, continuance and disengagement of contractual employees.

6. The engagements of the petitioners were pursuant to the notification dated 05.12.2013, issued by the Registrar General of India under Section 18 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, notifying the decision of the Central Government to update the NRC, 1951 in the State of Assam in accordance with the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003”, in short). Rule 4A, read with the Schedule to the Rules, provides the special procedure for updation of NRC in Assam, while Rule 11 mandates continuous maintenance and updating of the NRC.

7. It is the contention of the petitioners that during their tenure of service, they discharged their duties satisfactorily and were periodically appraised by the duly constituted appraisal committees in terms of the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014. They were consistently graded ‘A’ or ‘B’, and none of the petitioners were ever graded ‘C’ or ‘D’, nor were they served with any notice alleging unsatisfactory performance or misconduct. Consequently, their contractual engagements were extended from time to time.

8. The NRC updation process in Assam was carried out under the supervision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assam Public Works v. Union of India (WP(C) No. 274/2009) and the final NRC list was published on 31.08.2019, which has excluded 19,06,657 persons. However, according to the petitioners, the final NRC has not yet been notified in the Official Gazette and the final NRC has not been completed or given effect by the Government of India till date. Despite this, the petitioners were issued release/termination orders primarily on the ground of non-availability of funds.

9. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3148/2023 and WP(C) No. 6140/2021, submits that the NRC updation exercise in Assam is a statutorily mandated and continuing process under Rule 11 of the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003 and cannot be brought to a halt by executive action. The disengagement of the petitioners is in violation of the said Rules, particularly Rules 4A and 11 of the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003, as it has resulted in halting the NRC updation process. He submits that the service conditions of the petitioners are entirely governed by the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014, which provides for engagement, continuation and termination of the officials. Under Clause 8 of the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014, termination is permissible only upon adverse appraisal of grading “D”, after due notice, which admittedly is absent in the present case. The petitioners were never graded “C” or “D” and, therefore, their termination is ex facie contrary to the Regulations. He submits that the stand of the respondents to the effect that the NRC work has concluded or that funds are unavailable is misconceived as the NRC updation process is a continuous process as per Rule 11, which imposes a continuing obligation upon the State to maintain and update the NRC.

10. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the selective disengagement of the petitioners, while retaining the similarly situated employees, is discriminatory. While relying on the communication of the Registrar General of India dated 27.02.2025, he submits that the release of staff requires an independent assessment of necessity and application of mind prior to release of surplus staff, which is absent in the present case. The impugned release/termination orders disclose no such assessment and therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in terminating or discharging the petitioner and putting the NRC process to a halt is arbitrary, illegal and impermissible in law.

11. Mr. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the post of Circle Project Supervisor, in which the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3148/2023 were engaged, is the most important post in the NRC framework as it serves as a link to the district and also heads the Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and Helper and removal of the petitioners has effectively paralysed the NRC process. The petitioners were appointed through lawful selection process and have rendered long years of service in a project of National importance and thus, their removal caused grave prejudice to them. More so, due to non-issuance of NOCs, they could not even join other organization, which has caused severe and irreparable loss to the petitioners. Therefore, he submits that the impugned release/termination orders may be set aside and appropriate directions be issued for continuation and absorption of the petitioners.

12. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2831/2021, submits that although the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis, their appointments followed transparent and competitive selection process and their service conditions were governed by the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014. He submits that the NRC updation process in the State of Assam has been conducted under the continuous supervision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Though the final NRC was published on 31.08.2019, the process has not attained finality as rejection slips have not been issued and the final NRC has not yet been notified in the Official Gazette. He submits that the disengagement of the petitioners pursuant to the letter dated 23.03.2021 of the Registrar General of India, purportedly on the ground of non-availability of funds, is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable. Financial constraint cannot override statutory obligations, particularly when Rule 11 of the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003 mandates continuous maintenance and updation of the NRC.

13. He submits that under Clause 8 of the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014, continuation or termination is based on self appraisal report and the termination is permissible only upon adverse grading, particularly “D” or on the grounds of misconduct. The petitioners were consistently graded “A” and never put on notice for unsatisfactory performance and thus, the invocation of a general termination clause, bypassing the statutory appraisal mechanism, is impermissible in law.

14. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that the stand of the respondents that the petitioners were surplus staff or their work stood completed is factually incorrect and legally untenable. The duties of Junior Assistants were not confined to scanning work but involved continuous and statutory functions integral to the NRC framework. The State itself has repeatedly acknowledged the necessity of continuous updation of NRC under Rule 11 of Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003 and has proposed adoption of a system akin to continuous updation of electoral rolls. The respondents’ own pleadings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court acknowledged that the NRC process is incomplete and requires further statutory steps, including reverification. He submits that even contractual termination is subject to constitutional scrutiny under Articles 14 and 16 and arbitrary disengagement without adherence to statutory regulations is impermissible. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned release orders be interfered with and appropriate relief be granted to the petitioners.

15. In support of his submissions, Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, has placed reliance upon the case of Manager, Government Branch Press & Anr. Vs. D. B. Belliappa, reported in (1979) 1 SCC 477.

16. Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 470/2020 and WP(C) No. 577/2020, submits that the impugned terminations of the petitioners is ex facie arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice. Despite repeated representations highlighting that the NRC updation project was incomplete, the petitioners were released while retaining similarly placed contractual employees in service. Such selective disengagement amounts to discrimination and is unsustainable in law.

17. While subscribing to the submissions of learned Senior Counsels, Mr. Quadir, learned counsel, submits that under the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014, continuation or termination of contractual employees is strictly based on their performance appraisal by the appraisal committee and the employees graded “A” or “B” cannot be terminated by issuance of a simple one month notice. None of the petitioners were ever graded “C” or “D”, nor were they issued any notice of unsatisfactory performance. Therefore, the impugned termination orders are in clear violation of Article 311 as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He also submits that Rule 11 of the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003 mandates continuous maintenance and updating of the NRC and disengagement of essential staff directly violates this statutory obligation.

18. Mr. Quadir, learned counsel, submits that the petitioners were appointed through a statutorily recognized recruitment process in consonance with the constitutional scheme and have served the State during their most productive years for meager remuneration. Their abrupt release has deprived them of livelihood, infringing Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, he submits that the impugned termination orders may be set aside and the petitioners may be reinstated to their service with all service benefits, including absorption in the vacant Grade-IV posts of any other departments on contractual basis or continued engagement.

19. Mr. Quadir, learned counsel, placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions:-

                   (i) Liberty Oil Mills Vs. Union of India, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 465

                   (ii) Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212

20. Per contra, Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the NRC, submits that the petitioners were appointed purely on contractual basis and need based terms for an initial period of 11 months and their engagements were extended from time to time strictly in accordance with Regulation 8 of the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014. Each petitioner executed a written contract clearly stipulating the contractual nature of engagement. He submits that Clause 10 of the agreement expressly confers right upon either party to terminate the contract by giving one month’s prior notice and in the present cases, such notice was duly issued before release of the petitioners. The agreement, advertisement, engagement letters and the Service Regulations clarify that the petitioners would have no vested right to continuation, absorption or consideration for any other post under the State or Central Government.

21. Mr. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the NRC updation process in Assam stood completed with publication of the consolidated and supplementary lists of NRC during 2018 and 2019. Works such as scanning of documents and preparation and quality check of speaking orders, were completed by 31.03.2023 and at present, there is no active NRC updation work in Assam. Consequently, there is no requirement of contractual manpower engaged for the project. The Registrar General of India has, from time to time, advised release of surplus staff owing to completion of work and non-availability of funds. Therefore, the release of the petitioners was effected in consultation with the Central Government and uniformly applied to all similarly situated contractual staff, leaving no scope for allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination or mala fides.

22. He submits that it is settled law that contractual appointees have no vested right to continue beyond the tenure of their contract. In fact, for the same project, the Judicial Members, who were appointed to NRC Tribunals on contract, were also released in similar circumstances and the challenge to such release was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP(C) No. 978/2022 by an order dated 17.10.2023. He further submitted that although certain legal processes such as issuance of rejection slips and adjudication by NRC Appellate Tribunal have not commenced, same are presently on hold as the final NRC has not been notified by the Registrar General of India and the matter remains under consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

23. Mr. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, submits that Regulation 8 of the NRCP Service Regulations 2014 relates only to continuation of engagement where the employer intends to extend the contract and does not restrain the power of termination under Clause 10 of the agreement. Since one month’s noticed were duly given there is no violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that though Rule 11 of the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003 envisages continuous maintenance and updating of NRC, but as per the stand of the Central Government, no decision has presently been taken to undertake such updating exercise in Assam. Therefore, in absence of such decision, the petitioners cannot claim any enforceable right to continue in service.

24. Mr. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions:-

                   (i) State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nodha Ram & Ors., reported in 1996 (1) Supreme 358

                   (ii) MD, U.P Land Development Corporation & Anr. Vs. Amar Singh & Ors., reported in (2003) 5 SCC 388

                   (iii) Md. Samsuddin Ahmed Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2008 1 GLR 299

25. Mr. A. K. Dutta, learned CGC for the Union of India, submits that the NRC updation in the State of Assam is Central Sector Scheme and was undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003 as well as under the continuous supervision and monitoring of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The overall administrative and operational control is exercised through the State Coordinator appointed under Rule 15(3) of the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003, functioning under direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that in order to complete the NRC updation process within the timelines fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government was required to engage persons of various categories on purely contractual and need based basis. Such engagements were stage specific and directly linked to the workload at different phases of the NRC updation process. The Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC), while approving the revised cost estimates, expressly recommended optimal utilization of financial and human resources, fixation of output based targets for contractual staff and timely disengagement of surplus manpower to reduce costs. These recommendations were accepted and acted upon.

26. He submits that the winding up process of the NRC project, as approved by the Cabinet and the Central Government, was extended only up to 31.03.2021. Upon completion of the relevant stages of work, the services of contractual employees, including the petitioners, were released/terminated by issuing one month’s prior notice, strictly in terms of the contractual agreements and with the approval of the Central Government. He submits that though Rule 11 of the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003 provides continuous maintenance and updating of the NRC in Assam, but, at present, no decision has been taken by the Central Government to undertake further updation of NRC in Assam.

27. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

28. The petitioners were engaged/appointed as Circle Project Supervisors, Junior Assistants and Helpers on contractual basis in different districts and circles of the State of Assam, in the year 2014 and 2015 pursuant to advertisements dated 02/03.08.2014 issued by the respondent authorities and letter dated 16.10.2015 for engagement of various categories of contractual posts under the NRC Updation Project in the State and are governed by the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014, framed by the Government of Assam, which prescribe the method of selection, continuance and disengagement of contractual employees. Their engagements were pursuant to the notification dated 05.12.2013, issued by the Registrar General of India under Section 18 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, notifying the decision of the Central Government to update the NRC, 1951 in the State of Assam in accordance with the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003. The services of the petitioners were periodically appraised by in terms of the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014. They appears to have been graded ‘A’ or ‘B’, on which basis, their contractual engagements were extended from time to time.

29. The NRC updation process in Assam was carried out under the supervision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam Public Works (Supra) and the final NRC list was published on 31.08.2019, which has excluded 19,06,657 persons. However, the final NRC has not yet been notified in the Official Gazette and the final NRC has not been given effect to by the Government of India till date. The issuance of rejection slips and adjudication by NRC Appellate Tribunal have not commenced and are on hold as the final NRC has not been notified by the Registrar General of India and the matter remains under consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

30. It transpires that the petitioners were admittedly, engaged as Circle Project Supervisors, Junior Assistants and Helpers, purely on contractual basis and need based terms initially for a period of 11 months and their engagements were extended from time to time in accordance with Regulation 8 of the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014 and an agreements were executed clearly stipulating the contractual nature of engagement at the time of their engagements.

31. The NRC updation in the State of Assam was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003 as well as under the supervision and monitoring of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The overall administrative and operational control is exercised through the State Coordinator appointed under Rule 15(3) of the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003, functioning under the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In order to complete the NRC updation process within the timelines fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government was required to engage persons of various categories on purely contractual and need based basis.

32. The winding up process of the NRC project, as approved by the Cabinet and the Central Government, was extended only up to 31.03.2021, however allowed to continue till 2023. Upon completion of the relevant stages of work, the services of contractual employees, including the petitioners, were discontinued/terminated by issuing one month’s prior notice in terms of the contractual agreements and with the approval of the Central Government which cannot be found faulted. The petitioners were fully aware that their appointments were purely contractual, time bound and liable to be terminated at any stage by giving one month’s notice and thus, having accepted such terms and conditions, the petitioners cannot claim any vested or enforceable right to continue in service after completion of the project.

33. Rule 4A, read with the Schedule to the Rules, provides the special procedure for updation of NRC in Assam, on and after the commencement of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizenship and Issue of National Identity Cards) Amendment Rules, 2009, apply to the State of Assam. It provides that the Central Government shall, for the purpose, of the National Register of Indian Citizens in the State of Assam, cause to carry out throughout the State of Assam for preparation of the National Register of Indian Citizens in the State of Assam by inviting applications from all the residents, for collection of specified particulars relating to each family and individual, residing in a local area in the State including the citizenship status based on the National Register of Citizens 1951. The Registrar General of Citizens Registration, shall notify the period and duration of the enumeration in the Official Gazette.

34. Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules, 2003 mandates continuous maintenance and updating of the NRC in the State of Assam, which is quoted herein below:-

                   “11. Maintenance and updating of National Register of Indian Citizens - (1) The Registrar General of Citizen Registration shall cause to maintain the National Register of Indian Citizens in electronic or some other form which shall entail its continuous updating on the basis of extracts from various Registers specified under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (18 of 1969) and the Act.

                   (2) It shall be the responsibility of the head of each and every family to ensure that any event of birth or death occurring in the family has been duly entered in, or deleted from, the Local Register of Indian Citizens.

                   (3) The Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths and all other officials engaged in the registration of Births and Deaths shall assist the Registrar General of Citizen Registration in updating the National Register of Indian Citizens as required under sub-rule (1).”

35. Reading of above Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules, 2003 shows and mandates continuous maintenance and updating of the NRC in the State of Assam. However, as it is the categorical stand of the Central Govt. that currently, no decision has been taken by the Central Government to undertake further updation of NRC in the State of Assam. Thus, in absence of any operative NRC updation process, there may not have any requirement of contractual manpower.

36. The State of Assam has framed the Regulation for regulating the engagement and other conditions of service of persons engaged on attachment or on contract basis for the purpose of updation of the National Register of Indian Citizens, namely, National Register of Citizens Updation Project (NRCP) Service Regulation, 2014, the relevant rules which are reproduced herein under:

                   “3. Status of engagement

                   a. All engagements for the Updation Project shall be either

                    I. Through statutory provisions or

                   II. By way of attachment of additional responsibility by Government or Deputy Commissioners, or

                   III. Engaged on contract basis for a limited period.

                   6. GENERAL CONDITIONS

                   a. All candidates must be well versed in computer knowledge, specifically in Microsoft Excel, Word and PowerPoint.

                   b. A candidate for direct recruitment on contractual basis (other than for Government/Retd persons) shall not be less than 18 years and not more than 60 years of age.

                   C. Engagement of any additional Government retired persons for any specific tasks shall be considered by the State Coordinator on the basis of specialized knowledge and experience of the said Government retired person.

                   d. A person shall not be eligible for engagement to any service in the Updation Project if he is not a Citizen of India.

                   e. Any person who attempts to enlist support for his candidature directly or indirectly by any recommendation either oral or by any other means shall not be engaged

                   f. Inclusion of a candidate's name in the selection list shall confer no right to engagement unless engaging authority is satisfied and considers engagement necessary.

                   g. A person engaged to a service shall join immediately within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order falling which engagement order shall be cancelled Such period may be extended, by the State Coordinator if reasons beyond the control of the candidate are found to be justified by the State Coordinator

                   h. Any officer or staff of the Updation Project may be required to undergo such training and pass such tests as the engaging authority may prescribe.

                   i. All contractual employees will have to sign an agreement as per Schedule IIL

                   j. Period of engagement of all contractual employees shall ordinarily be eleven months or any period specific in the section issued by Finance Department for post creation.

                   k. Any officer or staff of the Updation Project engaged on contract basis shall be liable to be posted anywhere within the state of Assam or in any other department of Government, corporate body, society etc in the affairs of which the Updation Project may be interested.

                   7. REVERSION OR DISCHARGE

                   Any person engaged on contract service for specific period under an agreement shall also be liable to be discharged / released from NRC Updation Project, if he fails to discharge duties satisfactorily and as per terms of contract.

                   8. CONTINUATION OF FURTHER ENGAGEMENT OF EMPLOYEES ON CONTRACT

                   After successful completion of the terms of agreement the following procedure will be followed for continuation of further engagement based on Appraisal made based on their Self-Appraisal which shall be conducted by following Appraisal Committees:

                   Chairman : State Coordinator or his representative

                   Member : Executive Director

                   Do : Joint/Deputy Secretary, Home & Political of Assam to be nominated by the senior most secretary, Home & Political

                   COMMITTEE B

                   Chairman : Deputy Commissioner or his representative

                   Member : Addl. Deputy Commissioner (NRC)

                   Do : Any Office of the rank of SDO/EAC to be nominated by the Deputy Commissioner.

                   Each person on contract will submit his Self Appraisal Form and after appraisal he would be awarded either of the Grades A or B or C or D.

                   Those awarded Grade D shall be served with a notice for termination and their further continuance would be determined based on their reply submitted and decision on the reply submitted by Committee A above.

                   Those awarded Grade C shall be served with a notice for improvement and again appraised after a period of 3 months.”

37. The above regulation provides the mode of engagement and other conditions of service of persons engaged on attachment or contract basis for the purpose of updation of the National Register of Indian Citizens. Perusal of the regulation shows that period of engagement of all contractual employees shall ordinarily be eleven months or any period specific in the section issued by Finance Department for post creation. It provides that any person engaged on contract service for specific period under an agreement shall also be liable to be discharged / released from NRC Updation Project, if he fails to discharge duties satisfactorily and as per terms of contract. It further provides that after successful completion of the terms of agreement the certain procedure will be followed for continuation of further engagement based on Appraisal made based on their Self-Appraisal which shall be conducted by the Appraisal Committees. Each person on contract will submit his Self Appraisal Form and after appraisal he would be awarded either of the Grades A or B or C or D. Those awarded Grade D shall be served with a notice for termination and their further continuance would be determined based on their reply submitted and decision on the reply by Committee. Those awarded Grade C shall be served with a notice for improvement and again appraised after a period of 3 months. Thus, the regulations only provides for engagement, continuation and termination of the persons engaged on contract basis during the currency of the NRC updation project and does not provide for any regularization or absorption of the services of the contract employees.

38. All the contractual employees were required to sign an agreement. The terms of the contractual engagement, inter alia, provides that the engagement is purely on a contractual basis and would not be entitled to claim right, interests or further benefits as provided for contractual engagements or consideration of further appointment to the said post or any other post under the Deputy Commissioner, State Government or Central Government. The services shall stand automatically terminated at the expiry of contract period, without any necessity of giving any notice or notice of pay and without any liability to pay any retrenchment or other compensation or other amounts. The contract of the Party may be terminated at any time if the performance of the contractual employee is found to be unsatisfactory or below the minimum expected level or if it is found to be guilty of any insubordination, dereliction of duty or any other misconduct. Either of the parties have the right to terminate the Agreement without assigning any reasons; provided that a written notice of one month is given to the other party. Both the parties may, in lieu of the written notice, give the other party a sum equivalent to the amount of his/her salary for one month or shorter notice than one month with a sum equivalent to the amount of his/her remuneration for the period of which such notice falls short of 1 month.

39. Perusal of the regulation 8 of the NRCP Service Regulations 2014 shows that same relates only to continuation of engagement where the employer intends to extend the contract and does not restrain the power of termination/discontinuation or disengagement. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, since one month’s notices were duly given, there is no violation of principle of natural justice. The agreement expressly confers right upon either party to terminate the contract by giving one month’s prior notice. In the present cases, such notices were duly issued before release of the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners would have no vested right to continuation or absorption.

40. Although Rule 11 of the Citizenship Registration Rules, 2003 envisages continuous maintenance and updating of NRC, but as per the stand of the Central Government, no decision has presently been taken to undertake such updating exercise in the state of Assam. Thus, in absence of such decision, the petitioners cannot claim any enforceable right to continue in service for the reason that the NRC updation Project has been discontinued for which the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis.

41. It is noticed that the NRC updation process in Assam, relating to updation of NRC, 1951, has been put on hold with the publication of the consolidated and supplementary lists of NRC. As submitted by the learned counsel for the NRC, it transpires that works of scanning of documents and preparation and quality check of speaking orders, were completed by 31.03.2023 and currently there is no active NRC updation work. Thus, it appears that there is no requirement of contractual manpower engaged for the project. It is also noticed that the Registrar General of India had advised release of surplus staff owing to completion of work and non-availability of funds. Therefore, the release of the petitioners by discontinuing their services appears to have been effected in consultation with the Central Government and uniformly applied to all similarly situated contractual appointees.

42. It is brought on record that the Judicial Members, who were appointed to NRC Tribunals on contractual basis under the same project and similar circumstances, were released in similar manner and circumstances and the challenge to such release was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP(C) No. 978/2022 by an order dated 17.10.2023. Ordinarily, the contractual appointees have no vested right to continue beyond the tenure of their contract. In my view, the termination of services of the petitioners appears to have been effected in accordance with contractual terms, policy decisions and financial approvals and as such same does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.

43. Now, this court would refer and consider the case laws relied on by the learned counsel for the parties.

44. The case of D. B. Belliappa (supra), is that Belliappa was a Class IV employee. One of the terms of his contract of employment was that his appointment was purely temporary and that it was liable to termination at the will and pleasure of the appellant, without reason and without notice. The authorities served a notice on the respondent that he was guilty of an irregularity and to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. But thereafter the authority terminated the service with immediate effect as his appointment was temporary and terminable without notice and without assigning any reasons. A writ petition was filed in the High Court. The authorities took a stand that the Belliappa’s appointment was temporary and that according to the conditions in the contract of service, it was liable to be terminated without notice. Belliappa then filed a further affidavit alleging hostile discrimination, that his Juniors were retained in service and that his record of service was good. The High Court allowed the writ petition. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the authorities contended that Articles 14 and 16 are not attracted to the case of temporary employees and that the respondent could not complain against action taken in accordance with the contract of service. In that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held which is reproduced herein below:

                   “18. Mr. Veerappa’s first contention is that Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution have no application, whatever, to the case of a temporary employee whose service is terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service because the tenure or the duration of the employment of such an employee is extremely precarious being dependent upon the pleasure and discretion of the employer state. In our opinion , no such generalisation can be made The protection of Articles 14 and 16(1) will be available even to such a temporary Government servant if he has been arbitrarily discriminated against and singled out for harsh treatment in preference to his juniors, similarly circumstanced. It is true that the competent authority had the discretion under the conditions of service governing the employee concerned to terminate the latter’s employment without notice. But, such discretion has to be exercised in accordance with reason and fair play and not capriciously. Bereft of rationality and fairness, discretion degenerates into arbitrariness which is the very antithesis of the rule of law on which our democratic policy is founded. Arbitrary invocation or enforcement of a service condition terminating the service of a temporary employee may itself constitute denial of equal protection and offend the equality clause in Arts 14 and 16 (1). Article 16(1)guarantees "equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any officer under the State". Moreover, according to the principle underlying Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, the expression “appointment" used in Article 16(1) will include termination of or removal from service, also.

                   21. In the instant case, no special circumstance or reason has been disclosed which would justify discriminatory treatment to Belliappa as a class apart from his junior who have been retained in service. Mr. Veerappas frantic efforts to spell out justification for differential treatment to the respondent by reference to the show-cause notice that preceded the impugned action, is entirely futile when the stand adhered to throughout by his client is that there is no nexus between the show-cause notice and the impugned action which was taken without any reason in exercise of the power vested in the competent authority under the conditions of the respondents employment.

                   22. In view of this, we have no alternative, but to hold, that the termination of Belliappas service was made arbitrarily and not on the ground of unsuitability or other reason, which would warrant discriminatory treatment to him as a class apart from others in the same cadre.”

45. The case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarathi (supra), pertains to a case wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that by one stroke, seemingly resorting to the Spoils System alien to constitutional scheme, the Government of State of Uttar Pradesh has terminated by a general order the appointments of all Government Counsel in all the districts of the State and directed preparation of fresh panels to make appointments in place of the existing incumbents by a Circular dated 6.2.1990, terminating all the existing appointments irrespective of the fact whether the term of the incumbent had expired or was subsisting. The validity of this State action was challenged. There was no dispute that the circular related to and applied equally to all the Government Counsel throughout the State irrespective of their tenure whose appointments were terminated w.e.f. 28-21990 for being replaced by new appointees. The circular applied equally to not only those Government Counsel whose tenure had already expired or whose tenure was to expire before 28-2-1990, but also to those whose tenure, as a result of their earlier appointment, was to extend beyond 28-2-1990, as well as those who were entitled to be considered for renewal of the tenure on expiry of their earlier tenure. It was a common ground that the decision of these matters will govern the appointment of all Government Counsel throughout the State of U.P. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon consideration, has held which is reproduced herein under:-

                   “22. There is an obvious difference in the contracts between private parties and contracts to which the State is a party. Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest. This factor alone is sufficient to import at least the minimal requirements of public law obligations and impress with this character the contracts made by the State or its instrumentality. It is a different matter that the scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes. However, to the extent, challenge is made on the ground of violation of Art. 14 by alleging that the impugned act is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the fact that the dispute also falls within the domain of contractual obligations would not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Art. 14. To this extent, the obligation is of a public character invariably in every case irrespective of there being any other right or obligation in addition thereto. An additional contractual obligation cannot divest the claimant of the guarantee under Art. 14 of non-arbitrariness at the hands of the State in any of its actions.

                   24. The State cannot be attributed the split personality of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the contractual field so as to impress on it all the characteristics of the State at the threshold while making a contract requiring it to fulfil the obligation of Art. 14 of the Constitution and thereafter permitting it to cast off its garb of State to adorn the new robe of a private body during the subsistence of the contract enabling it to act arbitrarily subject only to the contractual obligations and remedies flowing from it. It is really the nature of its personality as State which is significant and must characterize all its actions, in whatever field, and not the nature of function, contractual or otherwise, which is decisive of the nature of scrutiny permitted for examining the validity of its act. The requirement of Art. 14 being the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably, there is nothing which militates against the concept of requiring the State always to so act, even in contractual matters. There is a basic difference between the acts of the State which must invariably be in public interest and those of a private individual, engaged in similar activities, being primarily for personal gain, which may or may not promote public interest. Viewed in this manner, in which we find no conceptual difficulty or anachronism, we find no reason why the requirement of Article 14 should not extend even in the sphere of contractual matters for regulating the conduct of the State activity.

                   29. It can no longer be doubted at this point of time that Art. 14 of the Constitution of India applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. (See Ramana Dayaram, Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCR 1014and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1980) 3 SCR 1338. In Col. A. S. Sangwan v. Union of India, 1980 (Supp) SCC 559 while the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by the statute or rule, was held to be wide, it was emphasised as imperative and implicit in Art. 14 of the Constitution that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Art. 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touch-stone, irrespective of the field of activity of the State, has long been settled…..”.

46. In the case of Liberty Oil Mills (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the Clause 8B of Import (Control) Order, 1955, which provides power to keep in abeyance applications for licences or allotment of imported goods, has held that the expression 'without assigning any reason' implies that the decision has to be communicated, but reasons for the decision have not to be stated; but the reasons must exist, otherwise, the decision would be arbitrary.

47. On careful consideration of the above case laws, I am of the view that no doubt that the principles laid down therein are settled position, however, same would not come to the aid of the petitioners as the facts in the above cases are totally different from the present cases. In the present cases, the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a particular period for a particular NRC updation Project, the project which has been discontinued and no longer in currency. Thus, reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners appear to be misplaced.

48. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nodha Ram (supra) and Amar Singh (supra), would be relevant and applicable in the facts of the present cases wherein it has been held that when the project is completed and closed, the employees have to go along with its closure. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to regularise the services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-existent establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them despite non-availability of the work. When the project comes to close, the employees who are working in the project will not get any vested right. In other words, once the project comes to an end, services of the employees also come to an end.

49. Reverting back to present cases, the petitioners were engaged on contract basis for a particular period for a particular NRC updation Project in terms of the decision of the Central Govt. With the discontinuation of the Project, there appears no option than to dispense with the services of the petitioners. By the very nature of engagement of the petitioners, which was contractual, continuation of which was dependent on continuation of the NRC updation project. Thus, the petitioners having worked in particular project of NRC updation, which has been discontinued and not in currency, in my considered view, cannot claim any right for absorption/ regularisation much less continuation. As noted herein above, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the particular project under which the employees had been working came to a closure, the said employees would not get any vested right so as to claim regularization of their services. Once the project comes to an end, the services of the employees also come to an end. The petitioners in the present cases were also engaged on contract basis appointed under particular NRC updation project. Their services automatically stood discontinued/terminated with the closure of the project. In such a situation, no mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to continue or absorb the petitioners in their services.

50. In view of what has been discussed herein above, this Court is of the considered view that no relief can be granted to petitioners for continuation, absorption/regularization in their contractual services. There is no any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 01.01.2020, 09.01.2020, 26.03.2021 and 31.05.2023 by which the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with. Thus, no interference to the impugned orders is called for. However, on the commencement of the process of issuing rejection slips, as provided in the impugned notices/orders, the petitioners may be re-engaged if the services of the petitioners are required.

51. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to cost(s).