IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26406 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SRI.RANJITH.M.R., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MOOLANGATTU RUDRAN VARRIER, "KAIVALLIAM", KALLADIPATTA.P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-6. BY ADVS. SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001. 2. THE PRESIDENT, THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001. 3. THE SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-69501. 4. THE SECRETARY, THE SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADV. SMT. P.K. RADHIKA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.26406/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION CALLING FOR APPLICATION TO THE POST OF STATE CO-ORDINATOR, PYKKA PROJECT. P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REPORT XV AND XVI. P3: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE REVIEW MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT COUNCIL HELD ON 29/03/2011 ON VARIOUS PROJECTS INCLUDING PYKKA. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19/05/2011. P5: COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15/06/2011. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT, UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 26/05/2011. P7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE NOTE MADE BY THE PRESIDENT 2ND RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/06/2011 BEARING NO.1406/A2/11/S&YA ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT COUNCIL BEARING NO.K.S.S.C/B1/4935/2011 DATED 19/08/2011. P10: COPY OF THE LETTER OF REQUEST ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15/07/2011. P11: COPY OF THE LETTER OF REQUEST ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15/07/2011. P12: COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN DESABHIMANI DAILY DATED 08/08/2011. P13: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION IN WPC. NO.21265/2011 WITHOUT EXHIBITS DATED 01/08/2011. P14: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.21265/2011 DATED 12/08/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. svs ............2/-... ..2.. WPC. NO.26406/2011 P15: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE HUMBLE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT RECEIVED ON 23/08/2011. P16: COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.K.S.S.C/B1/998/10 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TERMINATING SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER AS STATE CO-ORDINATOR, PYKKA PROJECT DATED 22/09/2011. P17: COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.KSSC/BI/998/10 DATED 14/05/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.26406 of 2011-A. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as State Co-ordinator of PYKKA Project of the first respondent Council. According to the petitioner, as a State Co-ordinator he had made commendable progress in the Project. The allegation of the petitioner is that the third respondent Secretary, who is bound to discharge his duties under Section 4(2) of the Kerala Sports Act, 2011 had issued Ext.P6 letter raising false and baseless allegations against him in blatant defiance of the orders of the President. The third respondent was nursing a grudge against the petitioner and therefore he wanted to some how throw him out. Accordingly, the petitioner was terminated by Ext.P5 termination order. The petitioner had challenged his termination in a writ petition, WP(C). WP(C).No.26406/2011-A. 2 No.21265/2011 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P14 judgment directing the Sports Council to consider the grievances of the petitioner in accordance with law. Accordingly, the matter was considered and the petitioner's representation Ext.P15 has been rejected. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said proceedings, Ext.P16. 2. The Standing Counsel for the Sports Council points out that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract for a specified period of one year and that he was terminated on the expiry of the said contract period. Therefore, there cannot be any complaint for the petitioner. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, various allegations have been made against the petitioner and without being issued notice or giving an opportunity of refuting the allegations, the order of termination has been issued to him. Therefore, the principle of Audi Alteram Partem has been violated in issuing the impugned order. 4. Further, though the direction in Ext.P14 judgment WP(C).No.26406/2011-A. 3 is for the Sports Council to consider the matter and to take a decision, the Council has not considered the matter as directed. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the impugned proceedings are unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal. 5. I have heard the counsel on both sides. 6. It is not disputed that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis. It is also not disputed that the term of the contract that was entered into between the petitioner and the Sports Council has expired. However, the counsel for the petitioner relies on an office note in Ext.P7 which directs the matter to be placed before the committee and also observes that the term of the petitioner's agreement would be extended till such time. The complaint of the petitioner is that the Secretary of the Sports Council had not obeyed the said direction. 7. However, the fact remains that the contract of the petitioner was not extended. Consequently, there is no contract in existence under which the petitioner can claim employment under the Sports Council. Since the WP(C).No.26406/2011-A. 4 petitioner's appointment was a contract appointment, there is no right available to the petitioner to claim extension of the contract as a matter of right or to claim employment after expiry of the period of contract. Though it is alleged that allegations were raised against the petitioner relating to the manner of discharge of his duties, I do not find that such allegations being relied on in Ext.P16 for not extending his service. On the basis of such allegations, apparently no action has been taken against the petitioner. The petitioner has been terminated only for the reason that the term of his contract has expired. The above being the position, I do not find any grounds to grant any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 8. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made against him by the third respondent may not stand in the way of considering him for any future appointments to which he may stake a claim. It is clarified that if the petitioner applies to any other posts in the future, WP(C).No.26406/2011-A. 5 the same shall be considered without being influenced by the above allegations made against him, without notice. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-