<^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BiLASPUR WritP8t3tionfS)Nol4950of20G8 Petitioner Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta, aged about 26 years, son of Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, r/o. Bhaiya Than Road, Mandir Para Sarguja Versus Resoondents {•-.. 1) The State ot Chhattlsgarh through Secretary, Departme.nt ] ;of ; Panchayat and :. Rural Deveiopment, D.K.S. Bawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Commission^r, RQjgar Guarantee Yojna, Vikas Aayukutaofftcer,Raipur(CG). 3) The CqlSector/Djstrict Programme Co-ordinator Rojgar Guarantee District Surguja ^3G). 4) Chief ExecUtlve Oflicer, | Ziia PanchayaS, DistrictSurgi|!ja(CG). | 5) Chief Executive Offlcer, Janpad Panchayat, Pratappur, DistritSui^uja (C<3). (Writ Petition under Artlcle 226 of Constltution of india) SB: Kon'ble ftflr. Satish K. Agnihotri, ^. Present: Mr. Sameer Behar, Advocate forthe petltioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER. -' . . (Passed on thls 16 ciay of March, 2009) The petitioner is aggrieved by theorder dated 7-8-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the apposntment of the petltioner on contract basis under National Rural Empioyment Guarantee Scheme came to ass end with effsct from 15-9-2008. 2) Mr. Sameer Behar, iearned counsei appearing for the petjtloner submits that the petitioner has been removed from service wlthout following due process of iaw i.e.< shovv-cause notice and proper enquiry before removing from service. - .• • . • : - :" 3) Per contra, Mr. Arun Sao, learned Govt- Advocate appeanng for the State submlts that the petltioner has'been. given: one month's .noticeiunderthe provisions of Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Contract Appointment) Rules2004 (for short, "the Rules 2CM34") read with CIause 10 of the appolntment order. .i\ The appointment of the petitioner was pureiy on contract basis for a period of one year. Thus, the petitioaier has not acqulred any right to the post as this was notin accordance with the constJtutionai scheme. 4) i have heard leamed.counsel for the panies, perused the pleadlngs and documents appended thereto. 5) The appointment of the petltioner was on contract basls for a period of one year under the provisions of the Ruies 2004 made In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to ArticSe 309 of the Constitution of India. R ';". ' • ' 's Rule 14 (ii) of the Rules 2004 provldes for termination of the appointment by either of the partles by giving one month's notlce In advance or paying one month's saiary in its place. 6) Rule 14 (ii) of the RuJes 2004 reads as under: "14 (il) During the course of appointment, either of the parties may terminate the appointment, by glving one month's notice in advance or paying one month's salary in its piace." ^' G <-i Accordingiy, the petitioner v^as sntimated by order dated 7-8-2008 (Annexure P/1) stating that tne semce of the petitioner wouid come to an end after one month i.e., 15-9-2008. 7) The appointment of the petitloner is not against any vacant sanctioned p^st and purely on contract basis for a period of one year. The petitioner was quite aware that his service was terminable by one month's notice or by one month's pay in Ileu of notlce at the time of appointment. Thus, the impugned order dated 7-8-2008 (Annexure P/1) Is In accordance with terms of the appojntment as \¥eilas the provisions of Rules 2004. i do not find any infirmit/ or irregularity in the impugned order. No show-cause notice Is necessary in thls fr/pe of appolntment and terminatlon accordingfy as the appolntment Itseif was -3- ^ for a limited period on contractbasis. (See: Secreteiry, State of Karnataka aiid othersVs.Umadevi & others1 and Gffldal UquidatorVs.Da^nandand others2), 8) For the reasons mentloned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. Consequentiy, I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 also stand dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri i Judge Raju ' 2006 (4) SCC 1 •i2008(10)SCCl