IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.743 of 2009 BHARATI KUMARI , daughter of Sri Kailash Kumar Sah, resident of Kirtan Bhawan Road, Ward No. 13, P.S.- Madhubani Town, District- Madhubani. …Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director (Primary) Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. 6. The Sub-divisional Education Officer, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. … Respondents / Respondents. ----------- 7. 03.12.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner was made on a contractual basis for a period of 11 months and the respondents had reserved the right of granting further extension only after being satisfied with regard to her performance duty, if her such renewal of contract was denied on the ground of any allegation, she ought to have been subjected to a show-cause notice followed by an enquiry and an order. Apparently, such procedure was never followed and even if the averments made in counter affidavit in this appeal is taken into account, all that would emerges is that some sort of general hearing was going on in which the appellant-writ petitioner along with others was also asked to participate. Such procedure 2 of hearing cannot be held to be the compliance of the principles of natural justice and to that extent we also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner that in view of the certificate issued by the District Superintendent of Education recording that the appellant-writ petitioner had satisfactory tenure of service, there would be hardly any occasion to believe that the past performance of the writ petitioner was unsatisfactory. The question, however, would be that even after the writ petitioner was made aware of her term being not extended and her replacement by one Amarendra Das, she did not choose to implead Amarendra Das as a party in the connected writ petition and today after almost one and a half years of his continuation in service, we would not like to disturb such appointment of Amarendra Das only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, taking into account that the appellant-writ petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend herself, has fairly agreed that the non-renewal of the contractual service of the appellant-writ petitioner will not be treated as a proof of her 3 unsatisfactory service and in fact her such non-renewal will not be taken to be stigma for her future employment in any other service. We believe that learned counsel for the State has very fairly agreed to this aspect because the District Superintendent of Education has also given certificate with regard to satisfactory working of the petitioner in the entire period of 11 months between 1.8.2007 to 30.5.2008. We would therefore dispose of this appeal with a finding that non-renewal of the contract of the appellant-writ petitioner will not stand in her way in obtaining any future employment. With the aforementioned observation, this appeal is disposed of. Kanchan/rishi (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)