PRASHANT KUMAR TEKAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 5.4.2012 passed by the respondent authorities whereby the contract of service of the petitioner appointing him on contract basis for one year on the post of Manager has been terminated.

(2.) THE brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Manager on contractual basis for a period of one year pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent authorities on 22.1.2007 proposing to fill up backlog vacancies of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes categories pursuant thereto the petitioner was ultimately appointed on contractual basis for one year by order dated 17.9.2007. The contractual appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time, lastly by agreement dated 30.1.2012 whereby it was extended upto 30.1.2013. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed W.P No.416/2012 before this Court for being appointed on regular basis and for regularization which was disposed of by order dated 13.1.2012 directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case for regularization within six weeks. As the representation of the petitioner was not considered and decided within six weeks, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.430/2012 before this Court, copy of which was supplied to the respondents on 12.3.2012. When the Contempt Petition came up for hearing before this Court, the respondent authorities informed the Court that the representation has already been considered and rejected by order dated 19.3.2012 pursuant to which the Contempt Petition was withdrawn. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 5.4.2012 the contract of service of the petitioner has been terminated, being aggrieved by which the present petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

(3.) IT is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have alleged negligence in the performance of the duties on the part of the petitioner but the said allegations relate to the period prior to renewal of his contract by agreement dated 30.1.2012 and, therefore, became irrelevant thereafter which indicates total non-application of mind on the part of the respondent authorities. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, it is stated that the impugned order be set aside.