This petition challenged an order directing contractual appointments under MGNREGA, arguing it violated a Supreme Court judgment mandating regular appointments. The High Court dismissed the petition, observing no illegality as MNREGA employment is contractual and noting earlier orders barred the specific claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1841 of 2020
… … Respondents
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioners : Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Chandra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate ---
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) issuance a particular writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order letter issued in memo no.- 11-403/ /2014/ 0 0( II) (M) 569 till 10.06.2020 (Annexure-1) whereby the directions has been issued to appointment at contractual basis upon the sanctioned and vacate post of MANREGA which is utter violation of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Kumar Tiwari Versus State of Jharkhand.
AND
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent to not given the effect of the letter issued in memo no.11-403/ /2014/ 0 0( II) (M) 569 order dated 10.06.2020 whereby the direction has been issued to make the
2
appointment on contractual basis upon the sanctioned vacate post of MANREGA in spite of regular appointment.
AND
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent to not given the effect of general notice issued in memo no.- 568 dated 10.06.2020 whereby the selection process of appointment in MANREGA is going to be held in spite of regular appointment in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has gone through the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7401 of 2019. He has fairly submitted that in view of the decision of this Court, the claim of the petitioners seeking direction upon the respondents to pass order in terms of judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand” reported in 2018 (3) JBCJ SC 291 is not tenable in the eyes of law.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that in view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners, can be granted.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 10.06.2020 (Annexure- 1) whereby direction has been issued to make appointment on contractual basis. It is not in dispute that the employment under MNREGA is purely contractual. Accordingly, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be grated in this writ petition.
6. However, it is sufficient to observe, as has already been observed in order dated 24.03.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7401 of 2019 that, if the respondents come up with any such scheme for regularization of MNREGA employees, they cannot be arbitrary and selective and if any such occasion arises later, the petitioners may have their remedy in accordance with law.
7. This writ petition is disposed of.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing contracts appointments under MGNREGA violates the Supreme Court judgment in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand.
Whether the High Court can grant relief to the petitioners seeking direction to the respondents to appoint employees based on regular appointments and quash the order for contractual appointments.
Whether the employment under MGNREGA is purely contractual and if the respondents can proceed with contractual appointments.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Vs. State of JharkhandReferred¶28
2018 (3) JBCJ SC 291
PANDEY & ORS.
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
