IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14375 of 2008 Maya Pandey, daughter of Sri Ramjee Pandey, resident of village+post office Kajarian, P.S. Rajpur, District- Buxar, at present Ward No.11, Bhabua P.S.- Bhabua, District- Kaimur. ………. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua 3.District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Bhabua, Kaimur 4.Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief medical Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua 5.Deputy Superintendent-cum-Secretary, Rogi Kalyan Samiti Sub-Divisional Hospital, Bhabua, Kaimur. …………… Respondents ---------------------------------- 3. 10/08/2011 In this writ application, petitioner has challenged an order of the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Kaimur dated 25.6.2008, as contained in Annexure-11, by which in view of the orders of the Collector, contract of the petitioner for working as Receptionist has been cancelled with immediate effect. It is not disputed that the petitioner was engaged as Receptionist by order dated 1.3.2007, as contained in Annexure-2, on a fixed remuneration of Rs.2000/- per month on purely temporary basis. It appears that when petitioner was on duty on 24.5.2008 at the Reception Counter, one Dr.K.P.Singh and one Dr.(Mrs.) Anita Singh came with whom 2 petitioner had some altercation. Therefore, petitioner filed a written complaint in this respect to the Deputy Superintendent of the Sub-Divisional Hospital on that very day, vide Annexure-6. Some enquiry was also held by the Deputy Superintendent and he submitted his report, vide Annexure-9. In the report, he has mentioned that inspite of repeated requests neither Dr.K.P.Singh nor Dr.(Smt.) Anita Singh filed any formal complaint. Matter was ultimately placed before the Collector, who happens to be the Chairman of the ROGI KALYAN SAMITI. From Annexure-19, it appears that the Collector applied his mind and found that the contract period of the petitioner for 11 months had expired and there was no post of Receptionist sanctioned under the Scheme. Hence, he directed that the services of the petitioner be dispensed with with immediate effect. Accordingly, impugned order was issued by the Civil Surgeon, as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the Deputy Superintendent itself shows that the petitioner was not at fault and in fact it 3 was Dr.(Smt.) Anita Singh, who had created the incident. He submits that the appointment letter does not show that appointment of the petitioner was for 11 months. He also submits that the petitioner had actually continued for 14 months and therefore, even if her appointment was for 11 months on contractual basis, she should be allowed to continue for next term of 11 months. He has produced a letter of the Deputy Superintendent-cum- Secretary of the Committee dated 13.10.2009. This letter shows that it has been issued in the light of the present writ application filed by the petitioner. In this letter, representation of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Collector and recommendation has been made that the petitioner’s appointment should be made with retrospective effect so that the dispute raised in the writ application may end. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and having perused the records, this Court finds that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was appointed on any regular sanctioned post 4 under the Scheme. It is true that Annexure-2 did not mention the period of engagement of the petitioner, but the Collector, i.e. the Chairman of the Scheme has noticed in his order that the petitioner’s engagement of 11 months had ended and there was no regular post of Receptionist under the Scheme. Aforesaid letter of the Deputy Superintendent dated 13.10.2009 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the hearing of the case also makes it clear that the petitioner’s engagement had ended. That is the reason why the Deputy Superintendent has recommended for ‘re-engagement’ of the petitioner with retrospective effect. It is true that there was some dispute between the petitioner and the said Dr.(Smt.)Anita Singh, but this cannot be denied that the petitioner was not appointed on a regular sanctioned post under the Scheme. Copy of the Scheme has not been produced to show that petitioner had any right to continue on the post pursuant to Annexure-2 on regular basis. Hence, the statement of the Collector, i.e. the Chairman of the Scheme, that the engagement of the petitioner for 11 months had ended and there 5 was no sanctioned post of Receptionist under the Scheme has to be accepted. In that view of the matter, no right accrues to the petitioner to further continue on the post so as to his termination from which, without any notice or show cause, could violate any right of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)