IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1588 of 2011 Md.Abul Bashar, S/O Md. Umar Azad, resident of Murgia Chack Purab Sarai Road Munger, P.S.-Munger, P.S.-Munger, District- Munger. .............Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Joint Director, (Industry), Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Magistrate-cum-District Programme Coordinator, District- Bhagalpur. 7. The District Development Commissioner, District-Bhagalpur. ----------- 02 28.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Admitted position is that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis for a period of two years on a fixed payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The order of appointment is Annexure-2 dated 13.09.2007. Obviously the respondents would not have been happy with the way the petitioner has worked during the period of his employment which compelled them to issue the order of termination. The remedy for the petitioner, 2 therefore, may be before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction seeking a proper declaration in terms of the contract or its breach. This Court can not go into the disputed questions of facts because the petitioner neither held a civil post as was a permanent employee who had protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Even, otherwise the appointment made as per the contract was valid till the conclusion of the contract. There are plethoras of decisions of not only this Court on such issue but even the Hon'ble Apex Court that for concluded contract of the kind Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be the remedy or forum for such challenge. The writ is dismissed. Safik (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)