IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7230 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAVUNNIKUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. P.M.RAVUNNI MENON, OTTUPARA, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NAVA NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. ECMS POLY CLINIC, REP. BY OFFICER IN-CHARGE, PERINTHALMANNA. 3. OFFICER IN-CHARGE, ECMS POLY CLINIC, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ASST.S.G. SRI. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).7230/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner states that he was appointed as a Driver in the Health Department on daily wages in the year 1985. Subsequently, he was appointed as Driver on contract basis under the third respondent in December, 2006. He is aggrieved by Ext.P1 which directs the termination of his service. Petitioner has not produced the order of appointment nor has he brought to my notice any statutory provisions, which require any prior notice as contended by the petitioner. Admittedly petitioner's appointment was on a contract basis. If that be so, petitioner is not entitled to insist for an extension of the period of contract. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons stated in Ext.P1 are not tenable and the petitioner has not crossed the upper age limit. In my view, the said aspect does not require any further detailed scrutiny, essentially because the petitioner's engagement, W.P.(C).7230/2008 2 admittedly was on a contract basis. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs