APARESH CHAKRABORTY Vs. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated May 4, 2010 is questioning the decision of the Deputy Director of National Academy of Customs, Excise & Narcotics, Eastern Region, Kolkata dated March 11, 2010 ( at p.31). The relevant parts of the decision are quoted below: Sub: Round-the-clock maintenance & operation of DG Sets. Water Supply Service & Electrical Service at NACEN Hostel, Kolkata-reg. This is to inform you that the subject services which are being provided by you presently will no longer required from 31.03.2010. You are requested to act accordingly.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is this. In 2007 he was engaged by the Academy for doing the work. Though the engagement was for a limited period, from time to time the term was extended, and the last application submitted seeking extension is dated December 10, 2009. It is evident that the extension was impliedly granted, because the Academy paid his bills for the subsequent periods. Under the circumstances, without disclosing any reason and before expiration of the extended one-year term the Academy could not terminate the engagement.

(3.) Relying on Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Arya & Ors., 2009 (2) CHN 274, Mr. Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner, has argued that questioning the arbitrary termination of the engagement the petitioner is entitled to Writ remedy, because the Academy, a State within the meaning of art. 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot terminate the engagement arbitrarily.