IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6198 of 2009 PAWAN KUMAR DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 18/05/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. The petitioner was appointed as a Block Accountant in a Primary Health Centre on 23.5.2007 on a contract basis for two years. Before the expiry of two years his services have been terminated on 27.11.2008 stating that his work was unsatisfactory. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is stigmatic. This Court finds it difficult to hold in case of contractual appointment that if the employer does not wish to retain him on account of unsatisfactory performance, it becomes stigmatic in nature. The petitioner has not acquired the status of a Government employee to lay any such claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner while asserting that the order of termination is not in accordance with clause 2 of the letter of appointment dated 23.5.2007 fairly acknowledges that there is no pleading in the writ application to the effect that neither was he given the required notice or salary in lieu thereof. The next grievance is that the Respondents are shutting out the petitioner from all future consideration. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order of termination dated 17.11.2008. However, if the petitioner has been terminated contrary to clause 2 of the conditions of appointment, and he files a representation to that effect, the Respondents are obliged to dispose off the same and pay him the legitimate dues, if any, thereunder. It is further clarified that the present termination of the petitioner cannot be an embargo against him from applying for all times to come. Any such conduct on the part of the Respondents shall be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. If the petitioner applies against any fresh vacancy to be considered for such contractual appointment, the Respondents are obliged to consider his candidature in accordance with law not influenced by the impugned order dated 17.11.2008. This is on the premise that the petitioner has to be given an opportunity to improve himself also. The legitimate dues, if any, shall be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)