IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1497 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1588 of 2011 ====================================================== Md. Abul Bashar, S/o Md. Umar Azad, R/o Murgia Chak Purab Sarai Road, Munger, P.S.- Munger, District-Munger .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna 4. Joint Director (Industry), Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna 5. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna 6. The District Magistrate-Cum-District Programme Co-Ordinator, District- Bhagalpur 7. The District Development Commissioner, District - Bhagalpur .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ghulam Rabbani, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG 15 Mr. Arun Kumar, A.C. to AAG 15. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 19-10-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28th June 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 1588 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at dispute is termination of the service contract of the appellant. By order dated 13th September 2007 made by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur the appellant and Patna High Court LPA No.1497 of 2011 (2) dt.19-10-2011 2 / 2 2 some others were employed as Programme Officers on a consolidated pay of Rs. 20,000/- per month under the District Rural Development Agency. The appointment was made for two years. Considering the conduct of the appellant his service contract was terminated on 27th November 2010. The challenge to the said order before the learned single Judge has failed. Therefore, the present Appeal. The learned single Judge has held that the employment being purely contractual; the appellant was not a civil servant within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. If aggrieved, the remedy lies before the Civil Court. We agree with the learned single Judge. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit/Anjani (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)