1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Gajanand Regar. Versus Union of India & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3321/2005 ... Date of Order: May 24, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Deputy Govt. Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5. BY THE COURT: Reportable. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders Annx.3 dated 6-5-2005 and Annx.4 dated 4-5-2005, as also the orders dated 29-4-2005 and 30-4-2005 and also seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner, vide order dated 19-3-2003 (Annx.1), was engaged on contract basis on the consolidated payment of Rs.6000/- per month on certain conditions stating therein that he would not be entitled for any other benefit or allowances except the consolidated payment of Rs.6000/- per 2 month. Condition No.8 of the engagement order Annx.1 provides that as per the contract, if the services of the petitioner are not found satisfactory at any time, or in case of indiscipline or misconduct, the Appointing Authority will forthwith terminate the contract. The terms of contract also provides that the contract was for a period of one year from the date of joining. However, subsequently, it appears that the contract of engagement of the petitioner was further extended from time to time upto the year 2004, though in the order it has been stated that the contract is extended upto the year 2007 but by a subsequent order Annx.R/2 dated 10-9-2004, it has been made clear that the period of petitioner's engagement is extended upto the year 2004 instead of the year 2007 and the figure “2007” has occurred due to typographical erred and this position has not been disputed even by the petitioner. By the order Annx.R/3 dated 16-3-2005, the contract of engagement of the petitioner came to an end with effect from 5-5-2005. Hence this writ petition. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis in the project known as “Lok Jumbish Pariyojna” and by the order Annx.R/1, the Project Officer of Lok Jumbish Project informed that the services of the persons engaged on contract basis is going to end on 30-6-2004 and in pursuance 3 thereof, by the order Annx.R/3, the engagement of the petitioner came to an end. It has further been stated in the reply that in the years 2003-04, the petitioner failed to raise the constructions as per the approved map, for which an explanation was sought from him vide R/3 dated 16-3-2005 and the petitioner filed the explanation. Thereafter vide order Annx.R/4 dated 22-3-2005, the petitioner was again asked to submit explanation and a reminder Annx.R/5 dated 19-7-2005 was also sent to the petitioner stating therein that the constructions raised by him were not found in accordance with the approved map and again the petitioner was asked to furnish explanation vide Annx.R/6 and Annx.R/7. There were found certain irregularities found to have been committed by the petitioner including negligence in discharging his duties on contract basis and, therefore, various orders Annx.R/7 to Annx.R/11 were issued to the petitioners. The petitioner flouted the orders issued by the respondent Authorities and for the disobedience of the orders of the higher authorities, a notice Annx.R/12 was issued to the petitioner. There had been certain complaints against the petitioner while working at Bhuraghata and Roopgarh and because of the negligence and inaction on the part of the petitioner, the sub-standard roofs constructed by the petitioner had to be dismantled causing loss of Rs.2.98 lac to the respondents. Along with the reply, certain documents Annx.R/13 4 to Annx.R/16 have been submitted showing various irregularities committed by the petitioner and the inquiry reports submitted by various authorities have also been filed. At any rate, the petitioner was engaged on contract basis on a consolidated payment of Rs.6000/- for a period of one year and subsequently the period of engagement was extended from time to time, but ultimately the respondents, finding the service of the petitioner not necessary for any more, terminated the contract of engagement. In my view, it cannot be said that the engagement of the petitioner on contract basis has conferred any right upon him to remain engaged on contract basis for an indefinite period. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contract of engagement of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondents on the ground that his services were not found satisfactory as also on the ground of indiscipline and misconduct and, that could have been done only after holding an inquiry as per the law. Learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that the petitioner was not a permanent employee of the respondents as he was engaged on contract basis on a consolidated payment of Rs.6000/- for a fixed term and, therefore, while terminating the contract, there is no requirement of law to hold a regular inquiry. The petitioner is not governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 5 1951 as also the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rule, 1958. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ramavtar Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., 2004 (2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 738, wherein this Court held that a person holding temporary post of Class IV employee and his term of appointment is extended with the stipulation that in case he does not improve his working, he shall not be accorded extension, if his services are terminated, no right is accrued in his favour. The Court placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & ors. Vs. Kaushal Kishora Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691, wherein the Apex Court held that under the service jurisprudence, a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated in accordance with the relevant service rules and the terms of contract of service. A reliance was also placed by this Court on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Triveni Shanker Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & ors., AIR 1992 SC 496, wherein the Apex Court held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice, has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right. In this view of the matter, in my view, the 6 respondents were justified in terminating the contract as no enforcible right accrued to the petitioner to continue with the respondents on contract basis for an indefinite period. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs