IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14387 of 2011 Jyoti Swarup S/O Sri Deo Narayan Manal R/O Vill.- Jay Nagara, P.O + P.S.- Barahara Kothi, Distt.- Purnea---------------- ---------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary of the Rural Development Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Purnea 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Purnea -------------- -----------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13882 of 2011 Rajesh Kumar S/O Binod Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Orlaha, P.S.- Barahara, Kothi, Distt.- Purnea-----------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Of The Rural Development Department Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Purnea 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Purnea--------------- -------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13916 of 2011 Pankaj Kumar Mishra S/O Sri Rajdeo Mishra R/O Vill.- Aliganj, P.O.- Laukahi, P.S.- B. Kothi, Distt.- Purnea------------- ----------------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Of The Rural Development Department Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Purnea 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Purnea--------------- ------------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13943 of 2011 Mrinal Kumar Bharati S/O Sri Ganesh Thakur R/O Vill. + Post+P.S.- Barahara Kothi, Distt.- Purnea--Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Of The Rural Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Purnea 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Purnea--------------- -------------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14093 of 2011 Tanveer Ahmad S/O Md. Sayeed Akhtar R/O Mohall- Sajjad 2 Colony, P.O. + P..S- Khajanchi Hat, Purnea, Distt.- Purnea------ --------------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Of The Rural Development Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Purnea 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Purnea--------------- -------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners were appointed on so called post of Panchayat Rojgar Sewak on the basis of a contract entered between the DRDA and the petitioners. The object of such engagements was to facilitate proper implementation of MANREGA programme in the various districts. The rights and remedies, if any, of the petitioners emerges from the contract. The engagements were initially for a period of two years, subject to such extension which may be granted based on satisfactory performance. The contract also provides for termination of the contract after giving a month’s notice or a month’s pay in lieu thereof. Petitioners were issued notice on 4.9.2010 by the DDC informing them of their intent to terminate the contract for the reasons indicated therein. Finally vide order dated 20th November, 2010 the contract of the petitioners were terminated along with many other persons similarly situated. These writs have now been filed challenging Annexure-1. Submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the decision of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of their fundamental rights and if it is so, they have a right to challenge the said order in the writ applications for quashing of the 3 same. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Popcorn Entertainment & another vs. City Industrial Development Corporation & anther, (2007) 9 SCC 593 (emphasis on para 22). The stand of the State on the other hand is that there are cases which are not maintainable at least under ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for many a reasons. The engagements of the petitioners on contract basis were not for contract of service but contract for service. The rights and remedies to the petitioners will accrue from the contract and if there is provision for removal in the circumstances mentioned in the contract then giving a month’s notice to the petitioners before termination is a valid exercise of power emanating from the contract. There are circumstances which have been talked about under which respondents did not find the performance of the petitioners up to the mark and their engagement or continuance in the roll of the Panchayat Sewaks were found to be redundant and not worthy of retention. Submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that there are other persons whose performance is sub-par vis-à-vis the petitioners and they have been let off by giving warning and there is element of discrimination. In this regard the Court can only observe that there is some kind of strength in the submission made at the bar on behalf of the State that the right of the petitioners flows from the concluded 4 contract and the remedy for the petitioners would lie under the common law remedy and matter of discrimination cannot be examined under Article 226. If the petitioners seriously feel that there has been a breach of a contractual obligation then the remedy for them would be to move under the common law for appropriate declaration or damages but no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted more so when petitioners are not holders of civil posts or akin to government servants. Writ is dismissed as being ill-advised. RPS ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)