CW 11617/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.11617/2009 Shyoraj Meena Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 07/10/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RA Verma, for petitioner Instant Petition has been filed with the grievance that respondents have arbitrarily not extended period of service contract of petitioner which came to an end on 11/09/08. Petitioner was engaged as Gram Rozgar Sahyak in NREGA scheme for the period of 2007- 08 and agreement was executed as is evident from document (Ann.4) and as per Cl.1(i), period of contractual appointment, it has expired on 11/09/08. Grievance of petitioner is that others were also appointed alongwith him by Panchayat Samiti Tonk vide order dt.05/09/07 (Ann.3) whose period of contract of service has been extended by respondents but decision having been taken not to extend period of contract of his services, is arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. It appears from the record that after CW 11617/09 //2// the period of contract of service having expired, letter dt.21/10/08 (Ann.6) was sent by Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Harchandera Panchayat Samiti, Tonk that muster rolls from Gram Panchayat were misplaced – as a consequence whereof, Project Officer Panchayat Samiti directed vide letter dt.22/08/08 to dispense with contractual services of Rozgar Sahayak. However, petitioner was appointed on contract basis in Gram Panchayat Harchandera as is evident from order dt.05/09/07 (Ann.3) & agreement dt. 11/09/07 (Ann.4) and because of muster rolls having been misplaced, Gram Rozgar Sayahak was considered to be responsible, therefore, the authority decided not to extend period of his contractual service. Submission made by Counsel as regards discrimination is without substance for the reason that the authority took decision of non-extension of the period of his contractual service, after assigning reasons in the order dt.24/10/08 (Ann.7). Even otherwise, appointment of petitioner being purely on contract basis, extension cannot be claimed as a matter of right in as much as justification has also been shown by respondents in taking CW 11617/09 //3// decision for non-extension of his contractual service. This Court does not find any manifest error in the decision taken by respondents. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/ 11617CW09Oct7Ds.doc