IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3383 of 2009 TEJ NARAYAN RAJ Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 19.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner an State. On 23.5.2008 the petitioner was appointed as Tutor on contract basis for six months only. The letter of appointment itself states that the extension of the contractual appointment was at the discretion of the respondents. To that extent, this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 11.2.2009 declaring that the contractual appointment of the petitioner came to an end on expiry of six months on 25.12.2008. No vested legal right for renewal of the contract can be claimed on basis of any clause incorporated in the appointment of likely renewal even if the petitioner has applied for the same. Extension of the contract purely lies in the realm of the administrative discretion of the respondents. However, in so far as the claim of the petitioner for arrears of the period he claims to have worked after the end of the contractual period, surely the State itself would not like to violate Article 23 of the Constitution of India. Even while declining relief to the petitioner on the former issue, this Court in so far as the latter issue is - 2 - concerned disposes the writ application with direction to the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner on facts. If he has discharged duties after 25.12.2008 till 11.2.2009, he is required to be paid his dues. Let this part of the order be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. The writ application is disposed off. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)