IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11274 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ GEETHA S.NAIR, PROJECT ENGINEER DPMU, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, 3RD FLOOR P.T.C. TOWERS, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, THAMBANOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION AGENCY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).11274/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is working as Project Engineer, Project Manager, in the DPMU at Malappuram, for the implementation of Jalanidhi, a project aided by the World Bank. Petitioner was appointed under Ext.P1 order and essentially Ext.P2 is an agreement containing the terms and conditions of the engagement of the petitioner. Petitioner and the “Kerala Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency” are parties to the terms of the agreement as contained in Ext.P2, with effect from 21.11.2006. Termination of the agreement, during the currency of the same for the reasons mentioned therein, should be with one month’s notice. According to the petitioner, her term was extended beyond the period of one year mentioned in Ext.P2 and she has been continuing. While so, Ext.P4 communication was send by the Executive Director of Jalanidhi to the Director (Technical), Project Managers, pointing out that the Government have sanctioned the extension of the project W.P.(C).11274/2008 2 with a direction to minimize the staff strength in a time bound manner. Accordingly, the services of 21 persons including the petitioner, were directed to be terminated on 31.3.2008. This is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination under Ext.P4 is not preceded by one month’s notice. A reading of Ext.P2 will show that one month’s notice mentioned therein is required only during the currency of the agreement as such. Continuance of the petitioner beyond the period mentioned should be by mutual consent. One month’s notice mentioned in Ext.P2 will not have application in such circumstances. At any rate, even the petitioner does not have a case that a fresh agreement was executed after the expiry of the term mentioned in Ext.P2. Going by Ext.P2, agreement is effective from 21.11.2006 and has a validity for a period of one year. W.P.(C).11274/2008 3 3. Petitioner was appointed on a contract basis and she cannot claim a right to be retained after the expiry of the period. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs