IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18194 of 2010 ANAMIKA SINHA D/O Sri Keshari Kumar, Resident of Mohalla- Saraswasti Colony, P.O. & P.S. Hilsa, Dist. Nalanda. ………………….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna. 3. Director in Chief, Health Service Department of Health, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Executive Director, State Health Samiti. 5. The Director, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Nodal Officer, State Health Samiti, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Department, Nalanda Division, Nalanda, Dist. Nalanda. 8. The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda, Dist. Nalanda. 9. The Deputy Superintendent, Sub- Divisional Hospital Hilsa, Dist. Nalanda. ………………… Respondents. ----------- 2. 19.05.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State admit the position that the appointment of the petitioner is on a contract basis and the selection, appointment, as well as, the so called termination in terms of Annexure - 9 is based on contract. There is a remark against the petitioner’s name that the appointment of the petitioner is subject to verification of eligibility of the vocational course or training obtained by her. Contract has been terminated obviously because in the said verification the so called vocational training - 2 - was not found to be obtained by an Institute recognized by the State of Bihar. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the decision, since appointment of the petitioner was on the contract basis and termination is part and parcel of the contract, remedy for the petitioner will not lie before a writ Court. As such this Court will not entertain the writ application on exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Remedy may be before a Civil Court. The writ is disposed of. Namita (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)