IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16026 of 2010 Smt.Anju Gupta wife of Sri Rajesh Gandhi, resident of village Anwarpur (near hotel Shish Mahal) P.O. Hazipur, P.S. Hajipur town, District Vaishali (now retrenched account officer Bihar, Education Project Council, Saran) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Education Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2. Sri Rajesh Bhushan Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna-800023 3. Shambhu Nath Pathak son of not known at present posted at Saran as an account officer, Bihar Shiksha Pariyojna, Saran 4. Director, Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, Bihar Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna (appointing authority). 5. Sri Ramanandan Prasad, Administrative Officer, Bihar Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna 03/ 27.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar Education Project Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council). 2. Petitioner was appointed as Accounts Officer in the Council at Saran. Her appointment letter is date 10.1.2007, Annexure-1, perusal whereof indicates that the appointment was for a period of three years and the contract of service is likely to be renewed. 3. This writ petition has been filed asserting that along with the petitioner other 37 persons were also appointed in the Council on the post of Accounts Officer, but the service contract of other 37 has been renewed and - 2 - petitioner has only been singled out for not extending the contract. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that her service was also satisfactory, but ignoring her satisfactory service, she has been singled out and in her case alone contract of service has not been renewed, private Respondent no.3 has been accommodated without following any procedure for appointment. 4. The validity of the appointment of private Respondent no.3 is not challenged in the present writ petition. Petitioner has only challenged the action of the Project Director not to renew her service contract. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to represent before the Project Director, who is directed to briefly indicate the reasons as to why the service contract of the petitioner has not been renewed. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of S.N. Mukherji Vrs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1984. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)