IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10895 of 2011 Md.Shahid, son of late Md. Ishaque, resident of village – Narwal Barwal, P.O. Narwal Barwal, P S – Bagaha, District – West Champaran-------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director General cum I G of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur. 4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur. 5. Parichari Prawar, Police Line, Bhagalpur. 6. Mr. Bipin Bihari Rai, Inspector of Police, Sultanganj Circle, Bhagalpur--------------------------------------Respondents. ----------- 02. 25.8.2011 Petitioner is an ex-service man. Under scheme of things worked out by the State of Bihar, such ex-service men came to be engaged on contract basis in what is known as Special Auxiliary Police (SAP). The appointment is based on a written agreement or contract executed between the State and such an appointee as would be evident from perusal of annexure- 3. Petitioner is one of such person who was engaged on contractual basis in the background mentioned in the agreement. This agreement was initially for a period of 9 months subject to renewal provided the conduct and service of such a person was found to be satisfactory. By virtue of Annexure-10 the said contract stands rescinded by the respondents and petitioner removed. He has moved the High Court challenging Annexure-10. First submission on behalf of the petitioner is that reason for termination of contract is not based on actual state of 2 affairs. Even otherwise if the reasons are read as a whole it amounts to stigma against the petitioner and such a decision could not be taken by the respondents without following the law in this regard. The submission of the petitioner does not merit consideration for the primary reason that appointment of the petitioner is on a contract basis which is a contract for service. The terms and conditions of such appointment flow from a concluded contract. Merely because respondents have communicated the background under which the contract was terminated, it cannot be termed as stigma. Even if it is so where is the protection granted to such person either under the service law or Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In fact, Court is of the opinion that such writ application itself is not maintainable and the remedy for the petitioner would lie under the common law if he feels there is breach of contract. Protection which is available to a permanent employee under the various service conditions including the constitutional provisions do not apply to the case of the petitioner. Writ is dismissed. Petitioner may invoke common law remedy if he is interested to pursue the matter. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)