IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13290 of 2011 1. Upendra Kumar S/O Sri Chandeshwar Prasad R/O Vill.- Dhurihar, P.S.- Hisua, Distt.- Nawada At Present the then Panchayat Technical Assistant, Fatehpur Block, Distt.- Gaya … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Rural Development Agency, Gaya 3. The District Magistrate-Cum-District Programme, Co-Ordinater, Gaya 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gaya 6. The District Programme Officer, Gaya 7. The Block Programme Officer, Fatehpur Block, Distt.- Gaya .. Respondents ----------- 2 13.10.2011 Appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis as a Panchayat Technical Assistant. It was a contract for service and not of service. On an inspection and review, certain facts emerged which indicated that the petitioner had not been true to his responsibility in implementation of what is known as MANREGA programme. They decided to annul the contract, remove the petitioner by divesting him of his responsibility. Writ has been filed saying that even though show cause was issued to him it was not considered and appreciated causing serious prejudice to his right to continue. The very nature of the appointment of the petitioner being such, such matters cannot be looked into and enquired under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the various rules of service including 2 protection of Article 311 is not available to the petitioner by the very nature of his engagement. If the petitioner feels that there are breach committed of the contract, he has common law remedy and a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the answer. Writ is dismissed. Md. Ibrarul (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)