AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The brief facts of the present case is that the petitioner was appointed as an Information Education Communication Officer (IEC) on contract basis for a period of 1(one) year, which was renewable, in the year 2011. On 25.05.2015, it appears that the petitioner was terminated by the respondents, but thereafter on the matter being referred to the higher authorities, he was allowed to serve for another 6(six) months. Thereafter, there was no further renewal of the contract. Being aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner is before this Court by way of this instant writ petition assailing the termination and non renewal of the contract by the respondents.
Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the instant writ petition though involving contractual employment, is maintainable under Article 226 before this Court in view of the fact that the scheme under which the petitioner has been engaged is funded by the Central Government and the appointments are made by due process as per the advertisement. He also submits that in view of the fact that the Government exercises effective and pervasive control, the dispute is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. H. Kharmih, learned GA on behalf of the State respondents in reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the relationship between the employer and the employee in the instant case is purely contractual, and the post cannot be said to be a substantive post under the Government. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the termination order which is found placed at Annexure-2 Page 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition which also reflects this fact. As such, he prays that there being no merit in the case, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same be dismissed.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties with regard to the maintainability of the instant writ petition. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has been appointed on contract basis initially for a period of one year, which was renewed till 2015. The letter of termination of contract is given in Annexure-II and is reproduced herein below for ready reference:
"GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE STATE TUBERCULOSIS OFFICER
MEGHALAYA :: SHILLONG
NO.MSTCS Contractual Appointment /IEC Officer/CF/2010-11/Dated: Shillong, The:______
To.
Shri. A. Nongbet,
Type-III, Block-I, Door-8,
CTO-Complex, Lower Lachumiere,
Meghalaya, Shillong-793001.
Subject: - Renewal of Contract.
Sir,
With reference to your letter dated: 25th May, 2015 regarding the Renewal of Contract, I would like to inform you that your contract has come to an end on the 24th May, 2015. Therefore, from this day the 25th May, 2015 onward you are no longer the employee of the society.
This is for your information and necessary action.
Yours Faithfully
Dr (Mrs). T.I. Rangad
State Tuberculosis Officer
Meghalaya, Shillong.
Memo NO. MSTCS/Contractual Appointment/IEC Officer/CF/2010-11/855-56 Dated: Shillong, The: 25.05.2015
Copy forwarded to:
Shri. Y. Tsering, Additional Chief Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Dept., Government of Meghalaya for information.
Personal File.
Dr (Mrs). T.I. Rangad
State Tuberculosis Officer
Meghalaya, Shillong".
The termination order dated 25.05.2015 shows that the termination was on the ground that the contract had come to an end on the 24th May, 2015. As can be discerned from the facts and circumstances of the case, the relationship of the petitioner and the respondents is purely contractual and as such, the dispute will not be amenable to writ jurisdiction. As such, the instant case under Article 226 is not maintainable. However, the writ petitioner is free to take recourse to remedy available under civil law.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.