NAVEENCHANDRA NIRALELAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. TATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs :

(2.) The background of the fact leading to the filing of this petition is that petitioner was working as a Project Manager / Project Scientist with Bhaskaracharya Institute for Space Application and Geo-informatics (BISAG) on a contractual basis since 2003. Subsequently, this contract in the year 2006 also came to be extended for a further period of 3 years and then, for 5 years' extension was given in the year 2010. However, on reaching the end of the tenure of 5 years' term, this contract was arbitrarily extended for a period of 6 months unlike other colleagues, who got 5 years' extension. As a result of this, the present petition is submitted before this Court. The details of the fact regarding his work is spelt out in Para.3 onwards. However, it is the main grievance that despite the fact that petitioner was meritorious, his contract has not been extended though there was no germane reason. Resultantly, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Mr.Rahul Sharma, learned advocate for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the service contract of the petitioner was not extended for the reasons of unsatisfactory work and this being a stigmatic step, the proper procedure for disciplinary action ought to have been observed by granting opportunity to the petitioner. This unilateral action of not extending the contract is unjust and arbitrary act on the part of the authority. It has further been contended that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and as such, act of non-renewal of contract is violative of principles of natural justice. It was also contended that there was a stipulation contained in the appointment letter itself to give at least one week notice before terminating the service contract but, no such notice was given and as such, this non-renewal of this contract since based upon a malice which has no nexus with his performance of duty, the action to be set aside as being perverse and absolutely arbitrary. It has further been pointed that so far as the other colleagues are concerned, the extension has taken place whereas in case of petitioner, though the performance of the petitioner was not at a stake, still, arbitrarily, the service contract is not renewed. As a result of this, since the entire action is based upon violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, this Court may grant the relief as prayed for in the petition.