1 S.B. Civil writ petition No. 2344/2010 Aashish Tripathi vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : 10.3.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Vijay Jain, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that he was appointed in District Sports Unit, Chittorgarh on the post of District Coordinator through NGO and his contract term was extened upto 16th June, 2010. According to petitioner, the District Collector, Chittorgarh on 4.12.2009 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain why he unnecessarily stopped the utility certificate, which should have been issued in time. The petitioner was further asked to explain why he did not cooperated with the coordinator. According to the petitioner, he submitted clarification and now petitioner apprehends that his services may be terminated. It appears that petitioner who has been appointed on contract basis is facing some inquiry and for which process has already been intimated by the District Collector, Chittorgarh wherein the petitioner has submitted his clarification and there is no order passed against the petitioner, yet the petitioner has approached on assumption that the respondents who have already issued show cause 2 notice and sought explanation from the petitioner, will pass oral order of termination of services of the petitioner. There is no reason to believe that the petitioner's apprehension is valid apprehension when the show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an interim order passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.6857/2009- Gangaram Rajoriya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors dated 29.6.2009, which has been passed only on the basis of that in one another writ petition no.6636/2009, the notices were issued and the interim order was passed. None of the facts of said case has been brought to the notice of this Court so as to find any similarity in the present matter. In view of the above reason also, I do not find that petitioner's writ petition can be similar to writ petition no.6857/2009. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if any order is passed against the petitioner, then petitioner may be permitted to challenge that order. For that purpose, there is no need of any permission of any court as that cause gives a cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the order. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-