JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to pay salary to the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the letter No. 1318 dated 27.07.2017, whereby the Block Shiksha Samiti has directed to terminate the contract of the petitioner. 2. From the entire writ application, it appears that the initial appointment letter has not been annexed. On a specific query with regard to showing initial appointment letter, nothing has been brought on record. However, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit dated 14.02.2020. 3. From a bare perusal of Annexure-4 it appears that the same does not contain any memo number and only an initial has been done with the stamp of Block Education Extension Officer, Gawan (Giridih), indicating therein that the petitioner was working since 26.03.2003 and also indicating that the petitioner has worked for 4 years from 2012 to 2016 as in-charge Principal-cum-Secretary. 4. After perusal of the entire records, it appears that the petitioner was contractually engaged on the post of Para Teacher at Vyonk Malda, Gawan Block for 11 months. This averment has not been controverted by the petitioner that initially he was appointed on contractual basis. 5. From record it further appears that an FIR was lodged against this petitioner on 30.03.2017 because petitioner assaulted the husband of one co-employee, Smt. Manorma Pandey, and for that petitioner was also taken into jail custody. On 31.03.2017, the School Management Committee declared the activity of petitioner as anti- ethical to teacher and decided to terminate the contract of the petitioner (Annexure-A to supplementary counter-affidavit). 6. Subsequently, on 03.04.2017, the Chairman, School Managing Committee and the Local Mukhiya wrote letter to the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih giving details of the misdeeds of the petitioner. 7. On the aforesaid letter, the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih ordered for fact finding enquiry. On 18.05.2017, the fact-finding report for the aforesaid incident was reported to be correct with recommendation to approve the decision of the School Managing Committee dated 31.03.2017 to terminate the petitioner. 8. On 27.05.2017, the District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Giridih called upon the Block Education Committee to endorse the decision of the School Managing Committee dated 31.03.2017 regarding termination of contract of the petitioner. 9. 8. On 27.05.2017, the District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Giridih called upon the Block Education Committee to endorse the decision of the School Managing Committee dated 31.03.2017 regarding termination of contract of the petitioner. 9. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Giridih wrote letter to the Block Programm Officer, Giridih to inform as to whether after the petitioner was removed w.e.f. 31.07.2017 he had performed any duty or not after coming out from judicial custody for 45 days. On 25.01.2025, the Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Block Programme Officer reported back along with report of Headmaster of the concerned School enclosing the attendance register that after 31.03.2017, the petitioner was absent and has never performed any duty. 10. After going through the aforesaid facts supported by the documents enclosed with the supplementary counter-affidavit, prima facie this Court is of the view that this type of act, as alleged, will certainly demoralize the students of the school and will not give a good reputation of the school. 11. Even otherwise, the service of the petitioner was contractual and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate by any chit of paper that his contract was extended from time to time. 12. So far as the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary is concerned, it is not clear as to for which period petitioner is claiming his salary. However, it is observed that if the petitioner has validly worked, he may approach the concerned authority claiming the arrears of salary, if any. 13. However, after going through the entire records, I do not find any reason to interfere with letter No. 1318 dated 27.07.2017. 14. Accordingly, no relief can be granted and the instant writ application stands dismissed. However, no order as to costs.