JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition is being finally decided under the rules of the Court. 2. I have heard Sri B.S. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Sri P.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohammad Alam, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 5. 3. To start with the controversy, the case in hand is quite simple and short but the manner in which things have taken place and the impugned orders have been passed, has created all complications. 4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 29th September, 2009 and 3rd October, 2009, (Annexures 11 and 14 respectively). The cumulative effect thereof is that the period of appointment of the petitioners beyond 30th September, 2009 as District Project Coordinator has not been extended. 5. The petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari for quashing both the above orders and a mandamus directing the respondents to consider them for next eleven months and not to interfere in their functioning as “District Project Coordinator”. 6. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present dispute, as stated in the writ petition, are that the Government of India launched Total Sanitation Campaign with joint venture with the State Government in the year 1999. This scheme was effective up to 2012. The said Scheme was launched in District Sant Kabir Nagar in the year 2002-03. As per the decision dated 24.11.2005 a District Sanitation Committee was to be constituted, chaired by the District Magistrate. District Panchayat Raj Officer is its Secretary. The other officers in the said Committee are Chief Development Officer (Deputy Chairman), Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Programme Officer, District Development Officer, Executive Engineer, (Jal Nigam), Chief Medical Officer, District Social Welfare Officer, District Information Officer and Deputy Director (Panchayat) who are its members. 7. The respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement on 4th September, 2004 inviting applications for appointment of District Project Coordinator on contract basis for a term of 11 months. The petitioner No. 1 was selected by letter of appointment dated 22.11.2004. Since his working was found satisfactory, he was granted extension regularly, but for 11 months at a time in each session, in the years 2005-06 till 2009-10. 8. The petitioner No. 1 was selected by letter of appointment dated 22.11.2004. Since his working was found satisfactory, he was granted extension regularly, but for 11 months at a time in each session, in the years 2005-06 till 2009-10. 8. The petitioner No. 2 is said to have been selected and appointed on the post of District Project Coordinator in similar fashion, vide appointment letter dated 31.12.2007 and has also been granted similar extension. 9. It is said that on 18th August, 2009 one Iftkhar Khan, real brother of respondent No. 5 Tabish Khan, who is sitting member of legislative assembly of Bahujan Samajwadi Party from Vidhan Sabha constituency, Sant Kabir Nagar, visited office of petitioner No. 1 with a dozen of unsocial elements, beat and abused the petitioner No. 1, & destroyed the record besides damaging furnitures etc. in the office. The reason behind the said incident alleged to be that he was pressurising petitioner No. 1 to release entire grant in favour of the village to which he belongs and when he was told that the competent authority in this regard is only District Panchayat Raj Officer, he attempted to exert undue pressure in the above manner. The incident was reported to the police, who took brother of respondent No. 5 and his followers in custody but later on they were set free under the pressure of respondent No. 5. This incident was also reported in daily newspaper “Dainik Jagran” and “Amar Ujala” on 19th August, 2009. 10. Thereafter respondent No. 5 also alongwith his brother and others humiliated the petitioner in public as well as in the office, and, on 25th August, 2009 came to the office of the respondent No. 3 and forcibly taken from him, (respondent No. 3) copies of the record of the selection process relating to the petitioners. 11. On 16th September, 2009 the respondent No. 5 made a complaint to respondent No. 2 against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners were selected during the regime of Samajwadi Party on extraneous consideration i.e after paying bribe and therefore, the matter should not only be enquired but they should also be punished. 11. On 16th September, 2009 the respondent No. 5 made a complaint to respondent No. 2 against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners were selected during the regime of Samajwadi Party on extraneous consideration i.e after paying bribe and therefore, the matter should not only be enquired but they should also be punished. The respondent No. 2 issued an order on 29th September, 2009 directing the respondent No. 4 not to extend the term of the petitioners after 30th September, 2009 and also to submit a report after making enquiry into the matter so that proper action be taken. 12. Pursuant to the letter dated 29th September, 2009, issued by respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 4 required the Chief Development Officer to submit a report and comply the directions of the respondent No. 2 contained in his letter dated 29th September, 2009. Thereafter the impugned order dated 3rd October, 2009 was passed declining to extend the term of the petitioners in view of the allegations made by the respondent No. 5 against the petitioners, as also the directions issued by the respondent No. 2 for not extending the term of the petitioners. 13. The order of the respondent No. 2 dated 29th September, 2009 and the respondent No. 3’s order dated 3.10.2009 are challenged on the ground of mala fide i.e. malice in law, non application of mind independently by the competent authority and also that the impugned orders are stigmatic in nature and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners, hence the same are in violation of principles of natural justice. 14. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent No. 2, and, respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 15. The respondent No. 5 is represented by the Senior Advocate Sri Ashok Khare assisted by Sri Mohd. Alam, Advocate and submits that so far as the respondent No. 5 is concerned, he is an elected representative of the people and in the interest of the residents of his constituency, made complaint against the illegal and unauthorized acts of the petitioners to higher authorities and beyond that he himself has no indulgence or interest in the matter. 16. Besides the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 16. Besides the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, under the orders of this Court dated 12.11.2009, the official respondents have also produced the record which included the complaint made by the respondent No. 5 and also the other correspondence between the authorities concerned. 17. At the time of final hearing of the matter, Sri M.M. Khan, Special Secretary and Director, Panchayati Raj, U.P., Sri Dinkar Prakash Dubey, District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar and Sri Paltu Prasad were also present and they were also given opportunity to clear their stand in the matter, besides oral submissions made on their behalf by the learned Addl. Advocate General. 18. The respondent No. 2 has categorically stated in his counter affidavit that he has no authority in the matter of appointment of District Project Coordinator. The said power vests with the Chairman, District Sanitation Committee pursuant to the Government Order No. 3207/33-3-2009, 227/99 dated 1.11.2004. Further, in para 15 of the counter affidavit it is averred that he received a complaint dated 16th September, 2009 from M.L.A. of the ruling party i.e. Bahujan Samajwadi Party and also an order dated 24th September, 2009 from the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj regarding conducting of an enquiry by District Magistrate and till then not to extend the tenure of the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 states that he wrote letter dated 29th September, 2009 so as to give effect to the direction of the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj. A copy of the Principal Secretary’s order dated 24th September, 2009 has also been placed on record as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2. He further submits in para 16 of the counter affidavit that in view of the order issued by the superior authority, he was under duty to make an order of enquiry in the sanitation programme for the verification of the conduct of the petitioners, which has been done by him in discharge of the said duty and not with a mala fide intention. He, however, submit that so far as the complaint against the petitioners is concerned, the same is subject matter of verification by the District Magistrate and in that regard he has nothing to say. He, however, submit that so far as the complaint against the petitioners is concerned, the same is subject matter of verification by the District Magistrate and in that regard he has nothing to say. However, he has assailed the right of the petitioners to claim extension as District Project Coordinator and states that his letter dated 29th September, 2009 is well within his jurisdiction and is a legal order. 19. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which has been sworn by Sri Paltu Prasad, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, it is admitted that a complaint was made by the respondent No. 5 whereupon an enquiry was conducted in which the petitioners were found guilty and therefore, the order dated 3.10.2009 was passed by the respondent No. 3. They have also challenged the right of the petitioners to claim extension since the appointment was on contract basis. They have denied allegations of mala fide. However, in para 12 of the counter affidavit it is said that the petitioners committed misconduct and quarrel took place in office compound, which is a serious misconduct on their part. As such the authority concerned directed not to extend their term. Therefore, the impugned order was passed. 20. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate has not filed any counter affidavit and submits that so far as the respondent No. 5 is concerned, being an elected representative of the people, he discharged his duty by making a complaint against the petitioners to the higher authorities in the matter and thereafter it was for the higher authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law. He submit that the respondent No. 5 did not do anything except of sending the complaint dated 16th September, 2009 and thereafter the entire action is of the respondents 1 to 4 in which his client has no role at all. He submits that the official respondents have nowhere taken the stand that the respondent No. 5 ever personally met them or exercised any undue pressure upon them to act in a particular manner in the case in hand. He submits that the allegation of mala fide or misuse of power on the part of the respondent No. 5 is neither correct nor is otherwise sustained from the material on record. 21. When the learned Addl. He submits that the allegation of mala fide or misuse of power on the part of the respondent No. 5 is neither correct nor is otherwise sustained from the material on record. 21. When the learned Addl. Advocate General was confronted with the averments contained in para 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and asked to show as to what enquiry was conducted by them, he produced certain documents which include the following : I. Letter dated 13.11.2009 sent by the learned Standing Counsel to the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. II. Letter dated 24th October, 2009 sent by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar to the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. III. A hand written document said to have been written by the respondent No. 3 himself addressed to one Sri Pandey asking him to construct a proper file and produce the record with respect to the matter of non extension of the contract of the petitioners. IV. Letter dated 29th September, 2009 of District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar addressed to Chief Development Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar. V. The letter dated 13th October, 2009 sent by Chief Development Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar addressed to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar and copy endorsed to the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. VI. A letter dated 29th September, 2009 of Director, Panchayati Raj addressed to District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar which also contained the terms and condition made by the District Magistrate on 29th September, 2009 itself. These documents shall form part of the record of this case. 22. The complaint dated 16.9.2009 sent by the respondent No. 5 was addressed to the Director, Panchayati Raj wherein it is said that an endorsement was made by the Principal Secretary on the same date i.e. 16th September, 2009 asking the Deputy Director, Panchayati Raj to submit report after enquiry and also to talk with him. Copy of the said complaint admittedly is not endorsed to any other officer. 23. On repeated enquiry from the learned Addl. Advocate General as well as three other officers present before this Court whether there is any enquiry report pursuant whereto the impugned order dated 3.10.2009 was passed, as alleged in para 4 of the counter affidavit, they could not produce any other document and submit that no other document is existing. 23. On repeated enquiry from the learned Addl. Advocate General as well as three other officers present before this Court whether there is any enquiry report pursuant whereto the impugned order dated 3.10.2009 was passed, as alleged in para 4 of the counter affidavit, they could not produce any other document and submit that no other document is existing. In fact Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Addl. Advocate General fairly stated that the statement made in para 4 of the counter affidavit that an enquiry was made wherein the petitioners were found guilty and thereafter the impugned order was passed is incorrect and may be on account of lack of understanding on the part of the authority concerned about the implication of such an averment. He could not dispute, however, that neither any enquiry appears to have been made by any of the authority till 3rd October, 2009 nor there is any such report in which they were held responsible of any alleged misconduct. He however submitted that no doubt the District Magistrate directed the Chief Development Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar to make an enquiry and submit his report but thereupon the Chief Development Officer, in his turn, sent a letter on 13th October, 2009 directing the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar to give his note alongwith evidence in the matter of allegations made by the concerned MLA i.e. respondent No. 5 and submit it within two days before him so that he may submit a report before the District Magistrate. 24. It does not appear from the record that any such note or comments were submitted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer before the Chief Development Officer and it is the admitted position on the part of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that no inquiry report even subsequently was ever submitted till matter was finally heard and the judgment was reserved by this Court. 25. It is evident from the above facts that the stand of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the impugned order dated 3.10.2009 was passed by them after making an enquiry and having received a report in which the petitioners were found guilty is incorrect and the statement has been made falsely. 25. It is evident from the above facts that the stand of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the impugned order dated 3.10.2009 was passed by them after making an enquiry and having received a report in which the petitioners were found guilty is incorrect and the statement has been made falsely. On the contrary, what is further evident and apparent is that on the alleged complaint made by the respondent No. 5, who is a member of legislative assembly and belong to ruling party, the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj on the same date passed an order directing the Deputy Director of Panchayati Raj to make enquiry and submit report and also simultaneously to talk with him. What he actually talked or what conversation took place is not known but intent becomes clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 which has been sworn by Sri M.M. Khan himself who is posted as Special Secretary and Director, Panchayati Raj wherein on the one hand he has admitted that the competent authority in the matter of appointment of a District Project Coordinator is Chairman of District Sanitation Committee i.e. District Magistrate concerned in view of the Government Order dated 28thSeptember, 2004 and he himself has no authority to interfere with the business of the Chairman but then in paras 15 and 16 the reason for issuing letter dated 29th September, 2009 by him is mentioned very clearly. This is evident from the above paragraphs, quoted herein below: 15. That the contents of para-14 of the writ petition is not admitted as alleged, hence denied and further it is submitted that the deponent got a complaint on 16-9-2009 from the Principal Secretary Panchayati Raj regarding conduction of an enquiry by District Magistrate and till then not to extent the tenure of petitioners and accordingly the deponent has written a letter on dated 29-9-2009 to the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. The true photocopy principal Secretary’s order dated 24-9-2009 and the deponents letter dated 29-9-2009 are being filed herewith as Annexure No. CA-2 & CA-3 to this affidavit. 16. The true photocopy principal Secretary’s order dated 24-9-2009 and the deponents letter dated 29-9-2009 are being filed herewith as Annexure No. CA-2 & CA-3 to this affidavit. 16. That the contents of para-15 of the writ petition is not admitted as alleged, hence denied, and further it is submitted that the deponent was under duty to make an order for enquiry in the sanitation programme for the verification of the conduct of the petitioners which has been done by the deponent in legal bound duty not with a malafide intention. 26. Copy of Annexure CA 2 to the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 2, which contains an endorsement of the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow is as under : fo0l0 (Jh joku) takp dj fjiksVZ nsus ds fy, ftykf/kdkjh dks Hkstsa rFkk ml le; rd dk;Zdky u c g0vi0 24-9-09 (vLi"V) izeqjOk lfZpo iapk;rhjkt foHkkx mRrj iznsk kklu 27. It is pursuant to this order, the impugned orders have been passed. Evidently, this Court is satisfied that the respondents authorities, in this case, have acted in a most hasty and mechanical manner, under the influence of respondent No. 5, may be for the reason that he was an MLA belonging to ruling party. Being responsible officers, and important part of the executive wing, whether they are justified in acting in such a manner is one of the important question which needs to be answered in this case. Is it suffice to receive a complaint from an elected public representative so as to pass an order adverse to the interest of an official working in connection with the functions of the Government and that too to the extent of casting stigma on such official without making any independent and impartial enquiry on the part of the executive authority is another aspect which has to be considered in this case. 28. So far as the right of the petitioners to claim renewal or extension or fresh contract for further period is concerned, this Court has no hesitation in observing that they did not have any such right, but, where the right to be considered for renewal is there & considering past performance such renewal has been made regularly, a person has a legitimate expectation at least to have his case considered for renewal by the concerned authority independently and without being influenced by any exterior material. Another question to be considered in this case is, even in a contractual matter, if an order is passed by an authority concerned casting stigma, whether principles of natural justice are attracted, failing which whether the impugned action could be held just and valid. 29. This is really an interesting matter where something, which could have been done in a simple manner by the official respondents in ordinary course of business by issuing just a two line order or by not issuing any order whatsoever and thereby it would have been made difficult to control their action in a Court of law, the respondents here have acted in a manner which in my view arbitrary and discriminatory, and, thereby is undefendable in a Court of law. This proves the saying that an act, which lacks bona fides, is difficult to shield, and, it leaves so many clues, cry on the house top that the action of the authority is apparently illegal and deserve to be interfered in judicial review. 30. First of all I propose to consider the issue regarding mala fide. From the record placed before this Court, and, in particular the letter dated 24th October, 2009 submitted by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar to the District Magistrate, it is evident that Sri Iftkhar Khan, brother of respondent No. 5 visited his office and thereat not only quarrelled with the petitioners but also abused them. The said incident took place in the presence of Sri Paltu Prasad, District Panchayat Raj Officer since he has written in his letter dated 24th October, 2009 that he and others pacified the parties. He further said that outside the office also the brother of the respondent No. 5 had a quarrel with the petitioners. For this disturbance he found the petitioners guilty. 31. On being enquired that when the outsiders quarrelled in his office and also abused the officials, whether he lodged any first information report against those who entered the office and quarrelled and abused the officials working in his office, he could not say anything. The record also do not show that any report was lodged. Stress has been given by the respondent No. 3 in his letter dated 24th October,. 2009 to the fact that Sri Iftkhar Khan was brother of Hon’ble Member of legislative assembly. The record also do not show that any report was lodged. Stress has been given by the respondent No. 3 in his letter dated 24th October,. 2009 to the fact that Sri Iftkhar Khan was brother of Hon’ble Member of legislative assembly. Sri Iftkhar Khan though in one line mentions that functioning of the petitioner No. 1 is not transparent but could not place anything to show as to how he comes to this inference. On the contrary, when enquired, from the learned Addl. Advocate General as to whether the allegation of financial irregularities on the part of the petitioners was found correct, he could not reply the same. Sri Chaturvedi after receiving instructions from the officers present in the Court further stated at the bar that the petitioners were only District Project Coordinators and had no financial powers which in fact vest in the Committee headed by District Magistrate. The Committee did not find any financial irregularity in the matter at any point of time. 32. Pointing out the complaint of respondent No. 5 that due to the collusion of the petitioners, crores of rupees have been misappropriated in the District, when enquired as to what was the total fund sanctioned for the District Sant Kabir Nagar and whether it was to the extent of several crores of rupees, Sri Chaturvedi fairly stated that the amount is not running in crores. It is thus evident from the letter dated 24th October, 2009 of respondent No. 3 that allegation made against the petitioners was ex facie incorrect & imaginary. In fact the only thing, which has been mentioned against them is that the brother of the respondent No. 5 was annoyed and quarrelled with the petitioners in the office of the respondent No. 3 for which the petitioner No. 1 is responsible. So far the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, there is no such averments at all even in the report. Admittedly, on 3rd October, 2009 when the impugned order was passed by the respondent No. 4, there was no report of enquiry wherein they were found guilty of any kind of irregularity or misconduct. The aforesaid order, therefore, has been issued in a mechanical manner. Admittedly, on 3rd October, 2009 when the impugned order was passed by the respondent No. 4, there was no report of enquiry wherein they were found guilty of any kind of irregularity or misconduct. The aforesaid order, therefore, has been issued in a mechanical manner. The respondent No. 4 could not dare to ignore the directions issued by respondent No. 2 i.e Director, Panchayati Raj who himself has admitted that he had complied the directions of the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj though simultaneously admitting in his own counter affidavit that in the matter of appointment of District Coordinator Officer it is only the Chairman of the District Committee i.e the District Magistrate who is competent to take any action and he has no jurisdiction in the matter. 33. Even if the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 may not have any malice against the petitioners but from the facts and discussions made above, I am also satisfied that they have failed to discharge their official duty independently and in a manner, an impartial, fair and just executive officer is supposed to act. It is true that an elected representative of people owe duty to the people at large which include complaint of public authorities regarding their act and omission, which are illegal or corrupt etc. to the higher authorities concerned so that proper action be taken in such matters. However it does not mean that the executive higher authorities must surrender in their entirety to the letters received from the people’s representatives simply because they belong to the ruling party and proceed in a mechanical manner as if whatever has been said or desired by such elected representative is a gospel truth and has to be obeyed and complied faithfully. 34. Unfortunately, in this case, an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj surprisingly has acted with such cowardice and has not only surrendered himself but has directed the authorities lower in rank to him to act accordingly. This is really unfortunate and must be censored by this Court. The executive authorities must keep in mind that they are holding public office in trust. The bureaucracy in the country is permanent while people’s representatives elected in the office hold office for a limited time and thereafter they may not necessarily return. This is really unfortunate and must be censored by this Court. The executive authorities must keep in mind that they are holding public office in trust. The bureaucracy in the country is permanent while people’s representatives elected in the office hold office for a limited time and thereafter they may not necessarily return. Their duty is to bring an act or action on the part of the public functionary to the notice of higher authorities so that the matter be properly examined and if found true, appropriate action be taken. But mere complaint by a people’s representative, simply because he belongs to a ruling party, would not mean that permanent executive wing of the Government must show a meek surrender and keep aside all canons of justice and procedural law with respect to decision making and proceed to punish a public functionary without any enquiry treating such information to be a gospel truth. It is said that our Constitution has three wings for its observance of Rule of law i.e. legislature, judiciary and executive. Every wing though to some extent may be overlapping but has separate and clear cut demarcated sphere of duties, obligations and functions. Every wing is accountable for due performance of its functions as enshrined in the Constitution. In our democratic constitution accountability and transparency are the pillars of democracy. There must be sunshine in the corridors of power. It would be extremely deplorable that the bureaucrats like the respondents are still living in the atmosphere of pre-constitution era, and, accountability and transparency are anathema to them. Normally, this Court proceeds on the assumption that the executive authorities must have acted in accordance with law and have shown their accountability only to rule of law and none else but where the facts show and indicate a steep deviation on the part of the authorities concerned, it becomes extremely important for the executive authority either to satisfy the Court about their bona fide accountability to rule of law otherwise they are guilty of breach of public trust being holder of the public office in trust to the people of this country. 35. 35. I have no manner of doubt in this case that the respondents 1 to 4 have acted illegally and have completely surrendered to a people’s elected representative simply because he belong to the ruling party and completely have failed to discharge their duties in the manner they were expected. 36. True, by itself this may not constitute malice in fact but I have no hesitation in holding the same to be malice in law, and, therefore is vitiated. The power of judicial review of a superior Court although restricted one but has many facets. Its jurisdiction is not only limited in a case where the administrative orders are perverse and arbitrary but also a case where the statuary authority has failed to perform its statutory duty in accordance with law. An executive action or order vitiated on account of mala fide i.e. malice in law is obviously liable to be interfered. 37. Mala fide is of two kinds : (i) Malice in fact, and; (ii) Malice in law. Ill will towards a party ; any indirect or improper motive in taking an action is generally described as “malice in fact”. “Malice in law” or legal malice means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause. It is a deliberate act in disregard of rights of others. An executive order passed for unauthorized purpose would amount to malice in law. 38. Here the unauthorized purpose is to please the political bosses. Viscount Haldane described it as follows in Shearer v. Shields, (1914) AC 808 at p. 813 : “A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind; he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of his mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly, and in that sense innocently.” In Smt. S.R.Venkataraman v. Union of India, 1979 SC 49 the Court said as under : “Thus malice in its legal sence means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause. “............if a discretionary power has been exercised for an unauthorised purpose, it is generally immaterial whether its repository was acting in good faith or in bad faith.” “................there will be an error of fact when a public body is prompted by a mistaken belief in the existence of a non-existing fact or circumstance. This is so clearly unreasonable that what is done under such a mistaken belief might almost be said to have been done in bad faith; and in actual experience, and as things go, these may well be said to run into one another.” “................It will therefore be a gross abuse of legal power to punish a person or destroy her service career in a manner not warranted by law by putting a rule which makes a useful provision for the premature retirement of Government servants only in the ‘public interest’, to a purpose wholly unwarranted by it, and to arrive at quite a contradictory result. An Administrative order which is based on reasons of fact which do not exist must, therefore, be held to be infected with an abuse of power.” 39. The principles constituting malice in law have been reiterated time and again by Apex Court and recently in R.S. Garg v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2006 (7) SC 1; West Bengal Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray, AIR 2007 SC 976 . 40. Now, coming to the question as to whether the petitioner has any right to be considered for extension or renewal of tenure or for a fresh tenure of 11 months on the post of Chief Project Coordinator, it is no doubt true that ex facie the engagement of the petitioners is contractual and for a fixed term. It comes to an end on the expiry of the period for which they are engaged. However, it is evident from the record that on the expiry of the term, the work and performance is assessed by the competent authority and if there is nothing adverse against them, extension of the term has been allowed instead of going for a fresh recruitment. For the last more than 5 years, on the expiry of every 11 months period, in the case of the petitioner No. 1 it is being done and the petitioner No. 2 also has been given two such extensions. For the last more than 5 years, on the expiry of every 11 months period, in the case of the petitioner No. 1 it is being done and the petitioner No. 2 also has been given two such extensions. The respondents, therefore, by their act and representation have caused a legitimate expectation to the petitioners that on the expiry of the term even though they have no right to get extension but at least they have a right to be considered for renewal of the term or extension or fresh engagement, as the case may be, based on the past performance. This consideration has to be made independently and on the basis of the past performance of the petitioners and none else. 41. If in the light of existing state of affairs, a party is given to understand that the other party shall not take away the benefit without complying with the principles of natural justice the said doctrine would be attracted in such a case and executive order visiting civil consequences would be liable to be assailed if the other party fails to observe such principles. The only exception which is recognised against the application of legitimate expectation is where the legislation is otherwise. In Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector, ETIO and others, AIR 2007 SC 1984 , in para 147 of the judgment the Court observed as under : “Legitimate expectation is now considered to be a part of principles of natural justice. If by reason of the existing state of affairs, a party is given to understand that the other party shall not take away the benefit without complying with the principles of natural justice, the said doctrine would be applicable.” 42. The doctrine of ‘’legitimate expectation’ has its roots in the principles of natural justice and has been recognized as a part thereof. No fresh right can be created by invoking said doctrine though by reason thereof the existing right is saved. 43. In Kuldeep Singh v. Government of N.C.T. of New Delhi, 2006(5) SCC 702 , the Apex Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters. 44. No fresh right can be created by invoking said doctrine though by reason thereof the existing right is saved. 43. In Kuldeep Singh v. Government of N.C.T. of New Delhi, 2006(5) SCC 702 , the Apex Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters. 44. In Poonam Verma and others v. Delhi Development Authority, JT 2007(13) SC 604, the Apex Court observed that legitimate expectation has a positive concept and an endeavour should be made to invoke the same wherever it is found that a practice was prevailing which is sought to be deviated without any reason. Legitimate expectation, of course, is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice. It refers to a regular, consistent, practicable and certain process or activity of the decision making authority. What is required is that expectation ought to be legitimate, i.e., reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid, cannot be a legitimate expectation. On its own, not being a right, it may not be enforceable as such, but it is a concept recognised by the Courts for judicial review of administrative action. It is procedural in character based on requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as consequence of promise made or promise established. Briefly, it can be said that a person is said to have legitimate expectation of a particular treatment if any right or promise is made by a party, either expressly or impliedly or if regular and consistent past practice of the authority had given room for such expectation in normal course. As a ground for relief the efficacy of this doctrine though vague, as it may be positioned just above “fairness in action” but far below the “promissory estoppel”. However, it may entitle an expectation of an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed or to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, the Court may direct the decision making authority to follow such procedure before taking an action otherwise. . 45. However, it may entitle an expectation of an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed or to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, the Court may direct the decision making authority to follow such procedure before taking an action otherwise. . 45. In the case in hand the right of the petitioners to be considered for fresh tenure has been denied not on valid consideration but on account of legal malice and for considerations other than permissible in law. The impugned order was not passed pursuant to an enquiry made by the authorities concerned wherein the petitioners were found guilty of certain misconduct but the record shows that no enquiry till the date when the impugned orders were passed was made and factually assertion made by the respondents 3 and 4 in para 4 of the counter affidavit to this effect has been found to be incorrect, as discussed above. 46. If a temporary or contractual or casual worker, who has not been selected after following a proper procedure i.e. in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution, he cannot invoke a theory of legitimate expectation, as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . But where a person has been selected and appointed after due advertisements and following the procedure of law, and the selection and appointment is not ex facie violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed i.e. equal opportunity of employment, in such a case, if a limited right of consideration for renewal of tenure for which one is appointed is available and has been acted upon and represented by the executive authority/employer in the past the same can be mandated by the Court. It is not the case of the authorities even before this Court that such provision was in any manner contrary to statute. In such a case such limited right can be adhered and a employer, who has failed to adhere to such right of the person concerned can be directed to observe the same without being influenced by any external consideration. 47. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 29th September, 2009 and 3rd October, 2009 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively (Annexure 11 and 14 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. 47. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 29th September, 2009 and 3rd October, 2009 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively (Annexure 11 and 14 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The respondent No. 4 is directed to consider the matter of engagement of the petitioners on contractual basis for the tenure as permissible in the relevant Government Orders afresh and in accordance with law, as discussed above in this judgment & without being influenced by any exterior circumstances. 48. Considering the facts and the manner in which the official respondents have acted in this case showing meek surrender to the political persons, in my view, this is a fit case where an exemplary cost should be awarded against the State authorities which I quantify to Rs. 50,000/-. It shall be paid personally by the official holding the office of concerned Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj on 29th September, 2009. The above amount shall be deposited with the Registrar General within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which it shall be open for the Registrar General to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. After realizing the said amount, the same shall be released to the petitioners. ————