IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15357 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar son of Ranjan Kumar, resident of Village-Basdiha Kalan, P.O.-Phesar, P.S.-Jamhor, District-Aurangabad, at present Mohalla-North Sri Srishnapuri, Boring Road, P.S.-Sri Krishnapuri, District-Patna. ........Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Patna. 2. The Joint Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Managing Director, Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, (BELTRON), Shastri Nagar, Patna-23. ........Respondents ----------- 02 09.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and counsel for Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Limited. There is no dispute on the basic fact that the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis entered between him and the Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Limited. He was assigned to work in the Forensic Science Laboratory at Patna along with one Shyam Sundar Pandit. Petitioner was not paid his remuneration along with the said Shyam Sundar Pandit, which compelled them to approach the High Court for a direction for payment. Payment came to be made subsequently. Subsequently he has come back to the Court this time on the ground that he has been relieved of his responsibility to work as a computer operator by way of discrimination as Shyam Sundar Pandit 2 has been retained, even though, engagements of both of them were under common set of facts. The question of discrimination or arbitrariness would not be gone into by this Court, especially after the petitioner had already entered into a contract between the respondents and him. If petitioner feels it’s a case of breach of contract it may entitle him for appropriate declaration, if not compensation under the common law remedy. No relief can be granted in a writ application. This Court, therefore, dismisses the writ application with liberty to the petitioner to invoke appropriate jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This Court in the given facts will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Safik (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)