IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14930 of 2011 Manoj Kumar Hembram S/O Sri Puran Hembram R/O Vill.-Fatehpur, P.O. Borawa, P.S. Jhajha, Distt.-Jamui. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Main Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development, Main Secretariat, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur. 7. The Executive Magistrate, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur. 8. The Block Development Officer, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur. ----------- 02. 21.10.2011 Petitioner was appointed on so-called post of Panchayat Rojgar Sewak on the basis of a contract entered between the DRDA and the petitioner. The object of such engagement was to facilitate proper implementation of MANREGA programme in the various districts. The rights and the remedies, if any, of the petitioner emerges from the contract. The engagement was 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. Petitioner was issued notice on the basis of an enquiry where the factum of use of JCV machine for earth work instead of man power was established. Finally vide order dated 16.3.2011 the contract of the petitioner was terminated which is confirmed by Annexure-1. A writ has now been filed challenging Annexure-1. 2 Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the decision of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of his fundamental rights and if it is so, he has a right to challenge the said order in a writ application for quashing of the same more so when no proper opportunity was given. The stand of the State on the other hand is that it is a case which is not maintainable at least under the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for many a reasons. The engagement of the petitioner on contract basis was not for contract of service but contract for service. The rights and the remedies to the petitioner will accrue from the contract and if there is a provision for removal in the circumstances mentioned in the contract then giving a month’s notice to the petitioner 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 action or conduct of the petitioner to be fair and honest therefore his continuance in the roll of a Panchayat Rojgar Sewak was found to be detrimental to the object of his engagement. 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 petitioner flows from the concluded contract and the remedy for the petitioner would lie under the common law remedy. The points urged in support of the decision of termination of contract cannot be examined 3 under Article 226. If the petitioner seriously feels that there has been a breach of a contractual obligation then the remedy for him would be 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 petitioner is not a holder of a civil post or akin to a Government servant. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)