Supreme Court rules against regularization of Million Wells Scheme employees, emphasizing project-based employment rules

The Supreme Court held that the respondents appointed under the 'Million Wells Scheme' were not entitled to regularization of services or regular pay-scales as they were temporary appointments for the specific scheme, which ended in 1994. The Court emphasized that employees hired for projects do not automatically gain rights for regular positions or pay after project completion. The closure of the scheme led to termination of their services, with the Court ruling against their regularization. The High Court's decision was set aside, leaving future employment prospects subject to discretion and suitability without addressing the retention of junior employees.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Regularisation of services of Assistant Project Managers.
2. Validity of appointments made under the 'Million Wells Scheme'.
3. Entitlement to regular pay-scales.
4. Impact of the scheme's closure on employment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Regularisation of Services of Assistant Project Managers:
The primary issue was whether the respondents, who were appointed as Assistant Project Managers under the 'Million Wells Scheme', were entitled to the regularisation of their services. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court directed the regularisation of the respondents' services and granted them regular pay-scales. However, the Supreme Court found that the respondents were appointed on a temporary basis for the specific purpose of the 'Million Wells Scheme', which was discontinued on 31/3/1994. The Court concluded that the respondents were not recruited against regularly sanctioned posts and hence, were not entitled to claim regularisation of their services.

2. Validity of Appointments Made Under the 'Million Wells Scheme':
The Court examined the internal note and order dated 2/11/1990, the letters addressed to universities on 9/11/1990, and the government order dated 22/2/1993. It was found that the internal note and order did not indicate the creation of 25 regular posts but rather the preparation of a panel for future requirements. The letters to universities sought names of candidates for training, not for regular posts. The government order sanctioned 107 temporary posts for the U.P. Sodic Land Reclamation Project, not for permanent positions. Thus, the appointments were valid only for the duration of the scheme.

3. Entitlement to Regular Pay-Scales:
The respondents sought regular pay-scales applicable to the post of Assistant Manager. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents were appointed temporarily under the 'Million Wells Scheme' and not against any sanctioned posts, they were not entitled to regular pay-scales. The Court cited precedents where it was held that employees appointed for specific projects do not have a vested right to claim regularisation or regular pay-scales once the project ends.

4. Impact of the Scheme's Closure on Employment:
The closure of the 'Million Wells Scheme' on 31/3/1994 led to the termination of the respondents' services. The Supreme Court reiterated that when a project or scheme comes to an end, the services of employees appointed for that project also terminate. The Court referenced the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nodha Ram and Ors., which stated that no vested right is created in temporary employment and directions cannot be given to regularise services in the absence of existing vacancies.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs. The Court acknowledged the respondents' service but stated that any future employment opportunities would depend on the discretion of the authorities and the suitability of the respondents for such positions. The Court did not address the issue of juniors being retained in service as it was not relevant to the appeal.

---