Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 357 (MP)

Manish Kumar Patel v. State of M. P.

2014-04-01

A.K.SHARMA, REJENDRA MENON

body2014
ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant calling in question tenability of an order-dated 1.2.2010, passed by the writ Court in W.P. No.11837/2009. 2. Appellant/petitioner was appointed on contract basis in a Project for a period upto 30.6.2008. Just a month prior to conclusion of the period of contract, his contract was terminated vide order-dated 5.5.2008 and, therefore, the writ petition was filed calling in question the termination of contract. The writ Court found that the contract was cancelled during the period of training, the work of the appellant/petitioner was evaluated and as he did not fulfil the benchmark fixed for continuing with the contract appointment, the appointment was terminated. 3. Even though learned counsel tried to emphasize that the termination has been done without considering the recommendation of the competent authority and in an illegal manner, which is not permissible, and reliance for the same is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Ashok Kumar Nigam, (2013) 3 SCC 372 , in support of the aforesaid contention, Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General, takes us through the assessment of the District Coordinators done and the note-sheets available from page 37 of the paper book, and argued that as the appellant was sent for training and in the training his suitability was found to be not in accordance to the benchmark fixed, the contract was terminated and in dismissing the writ petition, particularly when only a month of contract was available, it is argued by Shri Wadhwa that the learned writ Court has not committed any error. 4. This is a case where the appellant/petitioner was appointed on contract basis and a month before the conclusion of the contract the service has been terminated. The petitioner being a contract employee does not have any legal right to seek continuation of the contract appointment. The respondents have a right to terminate the contract and interference can be made with regard to such termination only if arbitrary or unreasonable decision is taken. 5. In the present case, the records indicate that based on performance of the appellant/petitioner in the training, his suitability has been assessed and based on the subjective satisfaction arrived at on such assessment of the suitability, the contract appointment has been brought to an end. 5. In the present case, the records indicate that based on performance of the appellant/petitioner in the training, his suitability has been assessed and based on the subjective satisfaction arrived at on such assessment of the suitability, the contract appointment has been brought to an end. Respondents have acted in a reasonable manner and there is nothing to indicate that the action of the respondents is in violation to any statutory rule or regulation, or the contract or any vested right accruing to the appellant/petitioner. 6. Accordingly, finding the respondents to have acted in accordance to law and the writ Court to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the contract appointment is already coming to an end within a month, we see no error in the matter warrant reconsideration. 7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.