IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8648 of 2011 Manoj Kumar Singh SON OF LATE RAMNTH SINGH RESIDENT OF METHWALIYA, P.S. REVEALGANJ, DISTRICT CHAPRA. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE STATE MONITORING OFFICER, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE REGISTRAR, COOPERATIE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COORDINATION COMMITTEE, CHAPRA. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SARAN AT CHAPRA. ---------------------------------- 2 18/08/2011 A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents which does merit consideration. Appointment of the petitioner is by the so called General Manager of Integrated Co-operative Development Project, Chapra which is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Annexure-1 is the contract based on which appointment made stands terminated. Since engagement or appointment of the petitioner is not a contract of service but a contract for service, the respondents had authority to terminate his contract if the respondents are not satisfied with his work or otherwise. - 2 - Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even in matters of contractual appointment, he has a right to continue on the ground of legitimate expectations as well as the principles decided by the learned Single Judge in Krishna Kant Choubey Vs. The Infrastructures Development Authority and others reported in 1010(4) P.L.J.R., 212. With due deference to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the principle laid down therein is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because the Integrated Cooperative Development Project is not a statutory authority created by the State. There is marked distinction between the employment under a statutory body which has been held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and other bodies. The ratio of the above case cannot be extended to each and every employer in matters of contract for service. The said decision has no application. The objection raised by the respondents is valid. This writ application is dismissed on that ground alone. Dismissal of this writ application, however, does - 3 - not bar the petitioner from invoking the common law remedies for breach of contract or otherwise. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)