AJAY PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 8.3.2010 has approached this Court by which his contractual appointment to the post of Pharmacist, Primary Health Centre, Poraiyahat, District-Godda has been taken away on the ground of judicial custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner although was appointed on contract basis in the year 2003 with certain conditions, for which, an agreement was entered into between the department and the petitioner wherein there is specific condition for removing the contractual appointee from service by giving two months prior notice or if the service of petitioner is not satisfactory. The petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case being P.S. Case No. 42/10 for the offence registered under Sections 387, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter, the petitioner was taken into judicial custody on that ground, the contract of the petitioner was cancelled w.e.f. 24.2.2010. It has been submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case vide judgment dated 27.4.2012 (Annexure-6). It has been further submitted that the result of the said criminal case was brought to the knowledge of the concerned authority by filing representation on 2.5.2012 for renewal of contractual appointment but order dated 5.6.2012 has been passed by the respondents denying his appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order dated 5.6.2012 is absolutely non-speaking order. The ground taken by the respondents in the impugned order dated 8.3.2010 is that the petitioner was taken into judicial custody and as such contract was not renewed. Since the petitioner has been honourably acquitted from all the charges levelled in the criminal case, the contract of the petitioner can be renewed. Therefore, It is a fit case that the petitioner's contract ought to have been renewed but concerned authority i.e. Chief Medical Officer, Godda has considered all aspect of the matter in one line and simply communicated the decision of Deputy Commissioner, Godda.

(2.) On the other hand, respondents has submitted that since the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis, the petitioner has no right to remain on contract, as such the authorities have arrived at decision not to renew the contract of the petitioner even though the petitioner has acquitted from the charges levelled in the criminal case.

(3.) Heard the parties.