WP(C) 143/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr BD Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr G Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Sarba Siksha Ajhijan Mission ( he reafter for short referred to as the ’Mission’). In short, the petitioner’s pleaded case necessary for disposal of the i nstant petition is that ,he initially in the year 1995 was appointed in the Dist rict Primary Education Programme , Barpeta and worked therein till 31st of June/ 2003. He was thereafter appointed as District Programme Officer, Sonitpur on con tractual basis. His initial term as such was thereafter extended from time to ti me. By order dated 24.3.2009 it was extended for a period of six months from the date of expiry of his last contractual period. Subsequent thereto, by communica tion dated 19.9.2009 , the Officer on Special Duty, SSA, Assam apprised the pet itioner that his over all performance on the SSA Training Programme and Worksh op organized was found to be unsatisfactory. He was asked to submit a reply as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his gross ne gligence in duties. Though in response thereto, the petitioner on 29.9.2009 sub mitted a detailed reply before the Mission Director , Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mi ssion, Assam , by the impugned order , the term of his contractual service has b een terminated on 15.12.2009. The order reveals that prior thereto, a report was called for from the State P rogramme Officer(IE) to the State Mission Coordinator , SSA, Assam which accordi ng to the Mission Director, SSA endorses the assessment of unsatisfactory per formance by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner on 11.12.2009 has s ubmitted a representation before the Mission Director, Assam Sarba Sikha Ajhijan Mission through the District Mission Coordinator, Sonitpur which is pending as on date. Reiterating the above, Mr Goswami has urged that the termination of the petitioner’s contractual service on the face of the record is unfair, the same having been effected without affording any reasonable opportunity to him to re present against it . He has further urged that the purported ground on which the impugned action has been taken is unfounded on facts as well. The learned Standing Counsel for the Mission on the other hand has subm itted that as the initial appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis , he has no right to continue as such and therefore his grievance is misconceiv ed. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the averments made in the writ petition supported by an affidavit and the d ocuments appended thereto, this Court without offering any comment on the merit of the challenge , considers it appropriate to close this proceeding by requir ing the Mission Director, Assam Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission to take an appropr iate decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 11.12.12009. This course has been adopted by this Court as the termination of the petitioner’s contractu al service appears to be on an evaluation of his performance as District Progr amme Officer IED, ECE & Incharge Coordinator, DUC of SSA, Sonitpur which, in vi ew of the conflicting stands, this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdicti on would be ill-equipped to delve into the factual aspects. In the above premise, this exercise is entrusted to the Mission Direct or, Assam. As the decision to be taken would have a vital bearing on the petiti oner’s prospects , the aforementioned authority would afford an opportunity of hearing to him before the same is taken. The exercise as ordered should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certifie d copy of this order. No costs.