RENUKA TIWARY, D/O LATE SARABJET TIWARY, R/O NEW AREA MORABADI, NEAR POLICE, T.O.P., P.S. BARIYATU, DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter of termination dated 04.09.2009 (Annexure-7) and for the direction to the respondents not to terminate the petitioner from the post of Joint Director (IEC) in Jharkhand AIDS Control Society.

(2.) The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application in nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis with the approval of the Director, Jharkhand AIDS Control Society, by the Ministry of Health & Family welfare, Union of India after following due process of selection. As per the terms and conditions, the appointment of the petitioner on contractual basis is to be renewed after performance appraisal on completion of one year as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ application. On the basis of appointment, the petitioner has been asked to enter into agreement on 8th Aug., 2008 on the post of Joint Director (IEC) with the respondent no.4 at the monthly emolument of Rs.30,000.00 per month as per Annexure-4 to the writ application. The appointment of the petitioner has been renewed for another two years on 3rd July, 2009 as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ application. But to the utter surprise and consternation, the services of the petitioner has been terminated vide order dated 04.09.2009 vide Annexure-7 to the writ application. Which is contrary to the guidelines of NACO, Government of India.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in terminating the petitioner services on contractual basis is illegal under Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel further submits that the impugned order of termination vide Annexure-7 is an ex-parte order which was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and the principle of natural justice has been given a complete go bye thereby rendering the impugned order nugatory and non-est in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has brought the attention of the Court to the order passed in W.P.(S) No.4785 of 2009 the order dated 24.11.2014 in the case of Maryada Purushottam Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said decision and the writ petition be disposed of in the light of W.P.(S) No.4785 of 2009 and the decision in the case of Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi, through its Vice-Chairman & Ors. reported in 2008 (1) JCR 265 (Jhr).