{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.578/2010 Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment : 6.10.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Raman Deep Singh Siddhu, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra-court appeal filed by writ petitioner of Writ Petition No.6810/2010 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 26.7.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in above mentioned writ petition. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and in turn upheld his termination from services. { 2 } 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this writ-appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition? 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal. In our view, the learned Single Judge is right in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant thereby justified in holding that appellant's termination from services is legal and proper. 5. It is not disputed that appellant came to be appointed by State by entering into a contract with him on 22.3.2010 (Annex.P-1) on the post of Junior Technical Assistant under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short called 'NREGA'). It is also not in dispute that pursuant to this contract, impugned order of his termination order after a brief period was passed on 15.7.2010 giving rise to its challenge in the writ. 6. As rightly held by learned Single Judge to which we respectfully concur, an appointment of appellant as “Junior Technical Assistant” being purely contractual in nature, it was terminable in terms of contract of appointment. It was not an appointment to the post which could be held to be a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In other words, we cannot possibly hold on the basis of contract in question (Annex.P-1) that appellant was a State employee and hence was entitled to the protection of Article 311 ibid. Indeed, this is what has been { 3 } ruled in Uma Devi's case by Supreme Court. 8. The State in order to execute the scheme called “NREGA” hired the services of appellant and accordingly entered into a contract. The contract does provide for such termination and accordingly it was resorted to finding the work of appellant to be not upto the satisfaction. 9. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that the impugned order of termination is stigmatic in nature and hence it was obligatory upon the State authority to have held an inquiry or issue show cause prior to termination. 10. We do not agree to this submission as it has no foundation to stand on the facts of this case. Once it is held that provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India have no application to the facts of this case, then in no such circumstances, this submission can be accepted. In such circumstances, all that the appellant could claim from the respondent/State is the damages for his wrongful termination provided any breach had been proved but not reinstatement in State services. This is what learned Single Judge held while dismissing the writ petition and we concur with his reasoning. 11. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. It fails and is dismissed in limine. ( DINESH MAHESHWARI ),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /tarun/