IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7662 of 2010 ====================================================== Shashi Bala Mehta W/O Dilip Kumar Dip R/O Professor Coloney, Forbesganj, Ward No.25, P.S.Forbesganj, Distt-Araria .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director, the Department of Social Welfare Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Women Development Corporation Bihar, 2nd Floor, Indira Bhawan, R.C. Singh Path, Bailey Road, Patna-1 4. The Administrative Officer, Women Development Corporation Bihar, 2nd Floor, Indira Bhawan, R.C. Singh Path, Bailey Road, Patna-1 5. The District Magistrate, Araria 6. The District Welfare Officer Cum Secretary Mahila Helpline, Araria 7. The Secretary, Mahila Chetana Samaj Ward No.15 Hanumantnagar, Araria .... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8101 of 2010 ====================================================== Sushil Kumar Bishwas S/O Late Bhishmlal Bishwas R/O Vill.- Borail, P.S. Mahalgoan, Distt.- Araria .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director, The Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Women Development Corporation Bihar 2nd Floor, Indira Bhawan, R.C.Singh Path, Bailey Road, Patna-1 4. The Administrative Officer Women Development Corporation Bihar, 2nd Floor, Indira Bhawan, R.C.Singh Path, Bailey Road, Patna-1 5. The District Magistrate, Araria 6. The District Welfare Officer Cum Secretary, Mahila Helpline, Araria 7. The Secretary, Mahila Chetana Samaj Ward No. 15, Hanumantnagar, Araria .... .... Respondents ====================================================== For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 3 and 7 : Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv. For the State:- : 1. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Adv. 2. Syed Hussain Majeed, Adv. ====================================================== Patna High Court CWJC No.7662 of 2010 (3) dt.29-09-2011 2 3 29-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents 1 to 6. The question involved in both the writ applications being common they have been taken up for consideration together and are being disposed by this common order. The stand taken by the respondents is also common. The petitioner in the former case was appointed as a Project Manager while the latter as a Project Counselor in the Mahila Helpline -cum-Women Protection Center, Araria, under the aegis of the State government and the Bihar Women Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’). Considering violence against women, especially the illiterate and poor, the Corporation established Help Line Centers for their benefit. These centers were to be run through Non- Government Organizations (hereinafter referred to as NGO). The petitioners came to be appointed by the NGO and not the State Government or the Corporation. They did not acquire the status of Government servants. The letter of appointment was issued by the N.G.O. The Court has serious reservations that a writ petition shall not lie against an N.G.O., even if the appointment was in pursuance of the N.G.O. acting under a scheme of the Patna High Court CWJC No.7662 of 2010 (3) dt.29-09-2011 3 Government. If that was not enough, on the own showing of the petitioners the contractual appointment granted to them was to expire in March 2010. They have been terminated shortly before the same. The ground mentioned that they were not eligible for the initial appointment is itself no more relevant in view of the subsequent developments. Suffice it to notice that after the initial appointment on 17.02.2008, their contract was extended twice before issuance of the impugned order of termination. Reliance placed by the petitioners on an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1336 of 2010 does not apply to them as that was a case of a contractual appointment under the Civil Surgeon- cum-Principal Secretary of the Department of Health Society. If the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority was a functionary of the State, a writ petition shall lie as distinct from the claim of the present applicants with regard to an appointment made by an N.G.O. Even otherwise, in the Judgment relied upon the contractual appointment was prematurely terminated. In the present case, even if, this Court were to hold that the writ petition was maintainable, which the Court does not, still no relief could be granted to the petitioners as the period of the contract came to an end in March 2010. Thereafter mere long continuance does not Patna High Court CWJC No.7662 of 2010 (3) dt.29-09-2011 4 create any right in them for renewal of the contract which may or may not fructify dependent on a host of factors, an inchoate right. No cause of action can be founded on an inchoate right. Any arrears of the petitioner for the period that they may have worked are directed, as the responsibility of the respondent- corporation, to ensure that it is paid by the concerned to the petitioners upon pain of appropriate action. If the petitioner applies in response to any fresh advertisement, it naturally has to be subject to fresh consideration in accordance with law. The applications are dismissed. Bhardwaj/- (Navin Sinha, J)