RAJNEESH SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned AAG for the State and learned Counsel for the State Health Society.

(2.) There is a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State that the impugned order contained in Annexure-10 dated 24th February, 2011 cannot be assailed or tested for its validity or legality under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as appointment of the Petitioner is under a registered society registered under the Societies Registration Act and was contractual in nature. The appointment letter is Annexure-5 wherein terms and conditions of contract have been indicated. Petitioner's service has been terminated after giving a month's salary in lieu of notice and remedy for the Petitioner would not lie before the High Court but may be before the civil court of competent jurisdiction..

(3.) Submission of the counsel for the Petitioner is that in view of the constitution and object of the society the State has over bearing presence in the constitution of the society as well as the pervasive control looking at the persons who occupy various posts as office bearers. He submits that termination even if it is a contractual post cannot be effected without being given opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. It is stigma in the face of the allegations made in the letter and that by itself makes out a case for interference. In addition to that he relies on para -40 of a decision rendered by the Supreme Court which is a case of Karnataka State Forest Industries Coiporation v. India Rocks, 2009 AIR(SC) 684.