IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12113 of 2011 Narendra Kumar Dubey Aman Krishana Video Resident of Vishwamitra Nagar, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar--Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Director Bihar Education Project, 5/5 Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, Patna.1 2. The District Superintendent of Education cum District Project Coordinator, Bihar Education Project, Aurangabad, Bihar. 3. The Accountant Officer, Bihar Education Project Aurangabad, Bihar-----------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 12.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is a settled principle of law that any person who approaches the Court must do so with clean hands since the Court is also a Court of equity. Another aspect which is required to be gone into is whether persons appointed purely on contractual post which is a contract for service and not of service can be extended similar kind of protection which is available to a State employee. Such benefits can be extended not only by virtue of the service rules but even Constitution of India, specially Articles 14, 16 and 311. The short background is that the petitioner was appointed by a society known as Bihar Education Project which has been created, may be by the State Government for carrying on the objectives of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan. Selection was made of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer on the basis of contract contained in annexure-1. The contractual agreement talks of the appointment not being of permanent kind. Petitioner has now been removed by virtue of the order passed in annexure-11 dated 24.5.2011 which is being assailed in the present writ petitioner on many a grounds. Before going into the nitty-gritty of the submissions it emerges 2 from record the petitioner was made an accused under several sections of the Indian Penal Code including section 420 etc. for defalcation of government money in which he was suspected to have a hand. Just before an FIR was lodged on 29.5.2010 petitioner made a quick application for casual leave on 25.5.2010 and since then he was not heard of nor reported for duty as his whereabouts as well as the reason for his absence of the prolonged kind was not known then. The stand taken by the petitioner for the reason of absence now is that he was suffering from Hepatitis-B and therefore advised bed rest. The so called certification obtained by the petitioner from the doctor concerned has to be viewed with suspicion in light of the fact that he went on leave just before institution of the FIR and he absented till he managed to get anticipatory bail in the case. The so called certificate of the doctor coincides with this period, which is too much of a coincidence. In these circumstances, when the matter was looked into regarding the prolonged absence of the petitioner and looking at the nature of work done by petitioner the authority decided to annul his contract. If the petitioner feels that there is breach of contract it is not for this Court to examine his grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has remedy under common law. Let him approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief or compensation for breach of contract. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a remedy for such dispute. This writ petition stands dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)