Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 83 (PAT)

Bijendra Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2014-01-17

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 01.08.2012 issued under the signature of Establishment Deputy Collector, Buxar, whereby contractual appointment of the petitioner on the post of I. T. Assistant has been terminated with immediate effect. 4. It has been pleaded in the writ application that pursuant to an advertisement for appointment of Block I.T. Assistant on contract basis, the petitioner had applied and after undergoing process of selection, he was finally selected and was appointed to the said post on contract basis vide letter dated 02.08.2011 issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar. From the said letter it will appear that the petitioner was appointed on basis for a period of one year on consolidated salary of Rs. 8000/- per month. He had submitted his joining on 03.08.2011. It appears that in the meanwhile, an explanation was sought for, from him by the Office of the Collector, Buxar on being prima facie, satisfied about his poor performance. The petitioner is said to have submitted his explanation vide Annexure-8 dated 18.02.2013, and finally the impugned order dated 01.08.2012 came to be passed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature inasmuch as the petitioner’s conduct has been condemned in the said order. He submits that it was incumbent upon the authorities to have dealt the petitioner’s explanation in the impugned order, but without doing so, the said order has been passed which casts a stigma upon the petitioner. 6. From the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis vide letter dated 02.08.2011 for a period of one year. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim as of right, continuance of such contractual appointment after completion of the period of one year. The impugned order has been issued on 01.08.2012 when the petitioner completed the period of one year of his contractual appointment. It is trite law that where appointment is contractual and the appointment comes to an end with efflux of time, the appointee has no right to continue in the said post. The prayer to the extent that he should be allowed to continue on such appointment therefore, cannot be acceded to. 7. It is trite law that where appointment is contractual and the appointment comes to an end with efflux of time, the appointee has no right to continue in the said post. The prayer to the extent that he should be allowed to continue on such appointment therefore, cannot be acceded to. 7. However, on perusal of the impugned order dated 01.08.2012, it is apparent that it is stigmatic in nature in as much as it has been mentioned that his contractual appointment was being terminated on the basis of adverse report received against him. The order does not contain any discussion on the petitioner’s explanation submitted on 18.02.2013. The said order dated 01.08.2012 cannot be sustained on that ground and it is accordingly, set aside. 8. The writ application is allowed to the extent as above. 9. It is indicated that the petitioner will be at liberty to file a representation before the appropriate authority, if he so desires for continuance/renewal of his contractual appointment and the respondents will be free to take a decision thereon.