SATYANARAYAN MAHOR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the order dated 12/11/2009 issued by the Collector -respondent no.3 terminating the contract employment of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner was offered contract employment as Sub Engineer vide order dated 24/2/2007 on conditions inter alia that the appointment is purely temporary, contract employment is for one year and in the event performance and working methodology if not found satisfactory, the employment shall be terminated. It appears that there was gross irregularities and substandard construction work of the building of Government Primary School, Heerapura, Block Vijaypur. A complaint was made in that behalf. In the enquiry, one Manoj Kumar Sharma, Construction Secretary, was found to be negligent and lacking in his official duty and, therefore, was suspended. The petitioner, Sub Engineer, was deputed for revaluation of the cost of construction and the quality of construction. As per his report, the value of the building was Rs.1,19,685/ - and the construction was reported to be of superior quality and fit for use for 30 years. On enquiry being conducted by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Division Sheopur, it was found that construction of the school building is of substandard. There is bend in the roof resting on one pillar with the danger of it being collapsed. There is constant seepage of water in the rooms and it was found that building is not fit for use. As such, the report given by the petitioner was found to be totally de hors the condition of the building at site. Accordingly, show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him for explanation on the issue as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the building was strong and usable for 30 years. On consideration of the reply, it was found that petitioner had made factually incorrect report, which reflected his unsuitability for the work he was assigned. Accordingly, the contract employment was terminated as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order.

(3.) PER contra counsel for respondents/State has supported the order impugned on the ground that the petitioner's appointment was totally contractual in nature initially for one year subject to renewals. It was in fact and in effect a temporary employment. Petitioner has no lien to the post and he has no vested right to continue over the post and the same was liable to be terminated, as the performance and working methodology of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, hence, considering the report submitted by the petitioner de hors the ground reality, it was found that petitioner was not suitable for the work assigned to him and, therefore, his services were terminated. No interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.