VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 has been filed for quashing the notice dated 24.8.1999 whereby the services of the petitioner who was serving as Assistant Director (Faculty) in the State Institute of Rural Development, Arunachal Pradesh was terminated with one month's notice. In addition the petitioner also prayed for issuance of a direction for regularisation of his services with other incidental reliefs. The notice impugned in this petition reads as follows :-

(2.) I have heard Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also Mr. H. Roy, learned State counsel for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. According to Shri Yadav, the services of the petitioners cannot be terminated as he has a right for consideration for regularisation. Shri H. Roy, learned State counsel, however, pointed out that it is purely an appointment on contract initially for a period of two years and, thereafter, continued for a further period of three years on fresh contract on specific terms and conditions of which the termination clause provides for one month's notice: on either side and, as such, the petitioner having no right to enforce regularisation or permanent appointment cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226.

(3.) The impugned notice dated 24.8.1999 shows that it was issued in pursuance of the provisions under para-3 of the order dated 22nd October, 1997 read with clause 10( 1) of the order dated 10.11.95. It would, therefore, be of convenience to refer to the aforesaid provisions invoked by the respondents in the instant case.