IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5878 of 2008(Y) PETITIONER: ------------ PRAJEESH KUMAR M.M., VADAKKEDATHTHAZHA, KAVIL P.O., NADUVANNUR (VIA), KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 614. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED CASTES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, P.T.P.NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - PIN 695 038. 2. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- PIN 673 020. 3. ASSISTANT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FOR SCHEDULED CASTES KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 020. 4. THE SCHEDULED CASTES DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BALUSSERY BLOCK, BALUSSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 612. 5. SRI.SAJEEVAN V.T., S.C.PROMOTER, NADUVANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MEETHALE CHERIKUZHIYIL, MANNANKAVU, NADUVANNOOR (VIA), PIN 673 714. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5878 of 2008 Y ------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as a SC promoter in the Neduvannoor Grama Panchayat under Ext.P1 order for a period of one year on contract basis. It is made clear in Ext.P1 that the appointment thereunder is purely provisional, without giving rise to any right for absorption in permanent service. It is further mentioned therein that if in the course of the said period of one year any inadequacy in the character and conduct is detected, the services of the person appointed under Ext.P1 would be dispensed with, without notice. 2. Apparently, on the premise that there was serious lapse on the part of the petitioner in handing over two bills pertaining to the educational concession of students of the Government Higher Secondary school, Neduvannoor within the stipulated period, thereby resulting in the lapse of the bill, a memo of charges was issued to the petitioner alleging serious administrative lapse on his part. It was replied to under Ext.P3 and after considering the reply, the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P4 order dispensing with the petitioner's service as a SC W.P.(C).NO.5878/08 :: 2 :: promoter on contract basis. Ext.P5 consequential order was passed by the Scheduled Caste Development Officer of the Balusserry Block Panchayat. Another person was appointed in the vacancy which arose from the disengagement of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged Exts.P4 and P5 before this court in W.P.(C) No.13673/07, which was disposed of under Ext.P10 judgment directing the disposal of a representation which had, by the time, been preferred by the petitioner before the Director challenging the termination of his services. The 2nd respondent Director affirmed Ext.P4 vide Ext.P11 order. Exts.P4, P5 and P11 have been challenged in this writ petition. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the impugned orders. It is pointed out that there is serious administrative lapse on the part of the petitioner resulting in detriment to several students. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination of service was not preceded by a hearing. Therefore, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. No W.P.(C).NO.5878/08 :: 3 :: enquiry was conducted. Till date, the facts are not correctly appreciated. 6. Learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that no such enquiry is contemplated in terms of the contract. There was serious administrative lapse on the part of the petitioner. It is taking note of these aspects, his appointment on contract basis was dispensed with. No enquiry as such is contemplated. 7. Having heard counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the orders under challenge do not suffer from any serious infirmity as to warrant interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is essentially so because the petitioner's appointment is on contract basis. As a matter of fact, it can be dispensed with even without any enquiry. Even the original period of appointment under Ext.P1 has expired. This court cannot issue a direction to re-engage the petitioner, in such circumstances. 8. But, I agree that if the impugned orders are proposed to be treated as disabling the petitioner from any future public employment as such, they are stigmatic and if so, they could have been passed only after an enquiry, as contended by the petitioner. W.P.(C).NO.5878/08 :: 4 :: In my view, it would be a waste of public time and money, if an enquiry as such is directed to be held at this stage. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of holding that the impugned orders, Exts.P4, P5 and P11, shall not, be treated, either as a reflection on the character and antecedents of the petitioner, in any future public employment, or as a disability, in the matter of future public employment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge