JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 24.11.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4269 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order dated 20.06.2019 by which the writ petitioner has terminated with immediate effect. 2. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated herein, read as under: The writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Campus Supervisor, a class-III post in the Government Women Polytechnic Ranchi by appointment letter dated 06.06.1997 on contract. The writ petitioner, while working as such for a period of more than 22 years, raised his grievance for regularization in service which having not been considered, has filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4923 of 2015. The said writ petition, however, is still sub-judice before this Court. The writ petitioner while working as such, was allotted with the work in Government Polytechnic Ranchi and during the service period, allegation has been levelled on the basis of the report dated 14.06.2019 of the two-men fact finding committee and the writ petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated 20.06.2019. Being aggrieved with the same, a writ petition has been filed being W.P.(S) No. 4269 of 2019 in which the writ petitioner has taken the ground that without initiating any departmental proceeding, the writ petitioner has been terminated which is against the principles of natural justice. The respondent-State has taken the plea that since the writ petitioner was appointed on contractual basis, therefore, there is no requirement to take penal action by initiating a departmental proceeding rather the appointment can be dispensed with by following the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment. The learned Single Judge, considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, has refused to interfere with the order of termination while dismissing the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 3. Mr. Ashim Kr. The learned Single Judge, considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, has refused to interfere with the order of termination while dismissing the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 3. Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that that issue of non-initiation of the departmental proceeding has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge and thereby, the non-observance of the principles of natural justice has been discarded while showing no interference with the order of termination dated 20.06.2019 and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference. 4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It has been contended that the writ petitioner since is an appointee on contractual basis, as such, there is no requirement to initiate a departmental proceeding rather the requirement before taking such decision is to follow the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment. Here, in the given facts of the case, serious allegation has come against the writ petitioner in a two-men fact finding committee wherein the nature of allegation considering to be serious, a decision has been taken to rescind the contract. It has further been contended that the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the nature of appointment to be on contractual basis as also considering the latches on the part of the writ petitioner which led the competent authority to take decision of rescinding the contract, is correct in not interfering with the order dated 20.06.2019 and hence, the same requires no interference. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 6. The issue has been raised on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner that departmental proceeding has not been initiated before terminating the writ petitioner, as such, the order of termination is bad in the eyes of law and the same having not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge, the order impugned requires interference. 7. This Court has appreciated the appointment letter dated 06.06.1997 appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and has found therefrom that the appointment of the writ petitioner was purely on contractual basis. 8. 7. This Court has appreciated the appointment letter dated 06.06.1997 appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and has found therefrom that the appointment of the writ petitioner was purely on contractual basis. 8. It is, thus, evident that the writ petitioner has been appointed purely on contractual basis and while discharging his duty, irregularity has been surfaced in negligence of the discharge of the duty as per the report of the two-men fact finding committee which pertains to showing no sincerity in the unsocial and illegal activities in the Polytechnic Campus and even no information was given of such unsocial and illegal activities to the higher authority. It further appears from the report of the two-men fact finding committee appended to the paperbook having been annexed in the counter affidavit which is part of the memo of appeal wherein the committee has found serious lapses in the discharge of the official duty by the writ petitioner. It has been found in course of enquiry that five to seven persons have illegally encroached the area by Praveen Kumar; Gautam Singh and; Ashdeo who were found to be in occupation of the rooms in the Campus of the Polytechnic Institution since long and were found to be involved in the unsocial and illegal activities. The activities of such persons have also been observed in the CCTV and it has come in the enquiry that the writ petitioner was supervisor in the Polytechnic Campus but no endeavour has been taken against such persons. The Committee, therefore, has made recommendation to forthwith post the Principal In-charge namely, Shri Ayodhya Kumar, outside the Ranchi under a senior officer as also to institute FIR against him. It has further been recommended against the writ petitioner to remove him from the place. 9. It is, thus, evident that the enquiry committee has found dereliction in duty on the part of the Principal In-charge as also the supervisor, the writ petitioner herein. The competent authority has acted upon such recommendation and has decided to rescind the contract and in consequence thereof, the writ petitioner has been terminated from contractual engagement. 10. 9. It is, thus, evident that the enquiry committee has found dereliction in duty on the part of the Principal In-charge as also the supervisor, the writ petitioner herein. The competent authority has acted upon such recommendation and has decided to rescind the contract and in consequence thereof, the writ petitioner has been terminated from contractual engagement. 10. The position of law is well settled that if an appointment is made on contractual basis, such contractual engagee is having no right to be retained in service if the employer is not willing to extend the contract and since the writ petitioner is having no legal vested right to retain in service, as such, the contract has been rescinded, therefore, the decision taken by the authority cannot be said to suffer from error. 11. This Court, having discussed the fact in entirety has gone across the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has found therefrom that the writ petitioner since was an appointee on contract and his work has not been found to be satisfactory and it is the condition stipulated in the offer of appointment that if the work is not found to be satisfactory the contract will not be extended and in that view of the matter the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of termination which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from error. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed.