WP(C) 2116/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY Heard Mr. R.Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smti. A,Varma ,learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. As pleaded in this writ petition, the petitioner was offered appointment on contractual basis under N.R.H.M. for the post of Block Accounts Manager, Kat tlicherra B.P.H.C vide communication dated 3.12.2008 issued by the Mission Direc tor-respondent No.2, Assam and on the basis of the said offer an agreement was s igned between the respondent authorities and the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of 6 months and he j oined on 30.12.08. He completed the period of contractual service but no extensi on of service was made thereafter. He submits that though no extension was grant ed he has been continuing in service till date. Notice was issued in this case on 31.3.2010 but no response has been fil ed by the respondents. Ms. Varma, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 prays for one week’s time to obtain response from the said respondents. However, I am not inclined to grant the said prayer rather I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition on the basis of the statements made and the do cuments made available by the petitioner. Mr. R.Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing the ca se of Rijumoni Das Vs State of Assam & Ors, reported in 2011 (1) GLT 737 submits that a notice should be preceded by termination of service but in the present c ase no such notice has been issued to the petitioner providing him opportunity o f being heard. I have carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. No doubt, the afor esaid case is also pertains to contractual appointment initially for 6 months, b ut I find the difference in that there was extension of service in the cited cas e unlike the present case where no such extension was granted. This position is not disputed by the petitioner. What is accepted is that the petitioner was allo wed to complete the contractual appointment for a period of 6 months and thereaf ter no extension to the aforesaid contractual appointment was granted. In view of the above, the decision rendered in the aforesaid case does n ot cover the case of the present petitioner. Mr. Dhar further submits that there is a clause in the agreement for extension of contractual service. The agreemen t is not on record. However, even assuming that such clause existed in the agree ment such clause would not create any right in favour of the petitioner claiming extension of contractual service. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I am not persuaded in accepti ng the contention of the writ petitioner. There is no merit in this writ petitio n. Accordingly, it is dismissed.