@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashThe Government of India introduced the NREGS scheme. Apart from providing the mechanism to implement it, it
has also evolved the process of supervision thereof by a set of persons known as ""Ombudsmen"" to be appointed for each District. The instructions
in this regard are issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, through order, dated 07.07.2009. The instructions are to the
effect that the Ombudsmen shall be appointed for a tenure of two years extendible by one more year, based upon the performance appraisal. Such
appraisal is to be undertaken by the selection committee.
2. The Government of A.P. issued a notification, inviting applications for the appointment of Ombudsmen for various Districts. The Petitioners
herein and several others applied. The selection committee recommended the names of the Petitioners for the respective Districts. Through orders
in G.O. Ms. No. 291, dated 10.08.2010, the State Government appointed Ombudsmen for 17 Districts. The tenure was mentioned as one year
extendible by another year.
3. The original term of the Petitioners ended by August 2011. Out of 17 Ombudsmen appointed through G.O. Ms. No. 291, four have resigned,
three were given extension by one more year and 10 including the Petitioners are sought to be discontinued. Hence, these two writ petitions.
4. The Petitioners contend that when the scheme provides for appointment for a term of two years, extendible by one year, there was no
justification for the Respondents in appointing them for a period of one year. They further submit that the extension by another year is a matter of
course, unless the performance appraisal by the selection committee disclosed that the candidate is not eligible to be given extension.
5. The 1st Respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that though the Central Government provided for appointment of Ombudsmen for a
term of two years extendible by one year, the orders of appointment were issued restricting the term to one year extendible by another year and
the Petitioners did not raise any objection for such a course of action. It is also stated that the performance of the Petitioners was found to be
unsatisfactory and in that view of the matter, steps are initiated to fill the vacancies.
6. Heard Ms. Vidyavathi and Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural
Development appearing for Respondents 1 and 2, Sri M. Subrahmanyam, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud,
Learned Counsel for the 4th Respondent.
7. In addition to providing the mechanism to ensure execution of the scheme, the Central Government wanted to have a set of persons to supervise
and monitor the scheme. For that purpose, provision was made for appointment of Ombudsmen. Clause (2.2.5) of the order, dated 07.07.2009
issued by the Central Government reads as under:
2.2.5 The Ombudsman shall be appointed for a tenure of 2 years extendable by one year based on performance appraisal or till the incumbent
attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. There shall be no reappointment. Performance appraisal shall be made by the Selection
Committee. A copy of the performance appraisal report shall be furnished to the State Employment Guarantee Council.
8. From this, it is evident that an Ombudsman must be appointed for a tenure of two years and the term is extendible by one year, depending upon
the performance appraisal.
9. The State Government issued a notification inviting applications for selection and appointment of Ombudsmen for various Districts. 17
candidates for the respective Districts were selected and orders of appointment were issued in G.O. Ms. No. 291, dated 10.08.2010. The
appointment however was for a term of one year extendible by one more year, depending upon the performance appraisal. It is no doubt true that
the term of office mentioned in G.O. Ms. No. 291, dated 10.08.2010 is at variance with Clause (2.2.5) of the order, dated 07.07.2009.
However, the Petitioners did not raise any objection at the time of appointment and at this length of time, this Court is not inclined to accept their
contention that the appointments ought to have been for a term of two years extendible by another year.
10. The one year term specified in the order of appointment had expired. An incumbent has a right to insist on extension of the term by one more
year, as long as the performance appraisal was not in the negative. The specific allegation of the Petitioners that no assessment or appraisal of the
performance as provided for under the relevant Clause has been undertaken, remains virtually unrebutted. Except making a general statement that
the selection committee assessed the performance of the Petitioners, nothing is placed before this Court indicating the views of the selection
committee.
11. It is true that the extension of the term cannot be claimed as of right. Where however, the order of appointment itself provides for it, the same
cannot be denied, as long as the conditions imposed therefor are complied with. The provision is couched in such a way that unless anything
adverse to the incumbent is noticed, his term of appointment must be extended. Except stating in general terms that the appraisal was made and it
is not up to the mark, the details thereof or the parameters of appraisal are not furnished.
12. The appointment is almost a honorary assignment. The selective retention of some and rejection of extension to others would certainly effect
the reputation of the Petitioners. Added to that, at no point of time, the Petitioners were informed of any deficiency in their performance.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed and the Respondents are directed to continue the Petitioners, till they complete the
term of one more year, as provided for under G.O. Ms. No. 291, dated 10.08.2010. It shall be open to the Respondents to proceed with the
appointment of Ombudsmen in respect of other Districts, where vacancies exist. There shall be no order as to costs.
