IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 13905 of 2006(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DR. S.RAJAPPAN NAIR, RETD. PRINCIPAL, VAISHAKOM, T.C.4/1496-1, PANDIT COLONY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHER EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGION, H.M.T. (P.O.), BANGALORE. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, WEST BLOCK NO.7, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-110 066. 5. K.KESAVAN NAIR, SECRETARY, KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR FOR R1&5 SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. FOR R1 & 5 SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM, ADDL.CGSC FO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.13905/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER (ORDER NO.G1/2006 DT. 22.5.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1:- COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 31.1.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE TO THE IST RESPONDENT. R1(b):- COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 28.2.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE. R1(c):- COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 31.3.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 13905 OF 2006 E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P1. Petitioner is the retired Principal of the Government Training College, Thrissur. Thereafter he joined the 1st respondent as a Professor in their Acharya Training College. The appointment was on annual contractual basis. By Ext. P1 order dated 22.5.2006 the 1st respondent has terminated the contractual arrangement with the petitioner and it is thereupon that the writ petition has been filed, challenging the same. 2. The main contention that is raised before me is that Ext. P1 order contains a stigma in as much as, it was allegations of certain misconducts that led to Ext. P1. It is contended that in the absence of a notice or enquiry having been held, Ext. P1 order cannot be sustained. 3. In my view, the assumption of the petitioner that Ext. P1 W.P.(C) No. 13905 OF 2006 -2- creates a stigma is incorrect. As already noticed, the engagement of the petitioner itself was on an annual contractual basis. Ext. P1 only shows that the contract has been prematurely terminated and it does not create any stigma at all and I cannot accept the contention of the petitioner to the contrary. 4. Since Ext. P1 spells out a case of premature termination of a contract, I am not satisfied that this Court should interfere with Ext. P1 in its writ jurisdiction. At the most, what the petitioner can claim is only payment for the remaining period of the contract, if ultimately he is able to succeed that Ext. P1 is illegal for any reason. Therefore, in this writ petition, the petitioner has not made out a case for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-