IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17656 of 2011 1. Lalit Vijay Sri Ratan Sinha R/O,Mohll.- Bardhwan,Hata,Arjun Nagar Near Taxi Stand,Purnea,P.S. + Dist.-Purnea Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Princial Secretary, Rural Development Of Department ,Govt.Of Bihar,Patna 3. The District Magistrate,Purnea 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner,Purnea ---------------------------------- 2. 20.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2011 as affirmed in Appeal on 7.7.2011 terminating his contract status as Panchayat Rojgar Sewak in Gokulpur Panchayat, Block-K. Nagar, District-Purnea under the MANAREGA Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is for refusal to meet targets. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the show cause notice that he failed to achieve target because of delay/failure in disbursal of funds. It is additionally submitted that under the guide lines framed by the State Government dated 25.5.2009, the issue of removal was required to be considered by the committee which alone could take a decision for removal and 2 make recommendation to the appropriate authority for the same. The original order dated 30.11.2010 does not reflect that his case was placed for consideration before the Committee. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed on contract basis for a period of two years on 1.8.2007. It is his further contention that without formal orders of renewal not only he but also others have been continued. The petitioner is not a Government servant. The contract agreement signed between the parties is not on record but the impugned order dated 30.11.2010 contains an extract of the same that the petitioner could be removed for poor performance after giving one months notice or remuneration in lieu thereof. The latter part is acknowledged to have been complied with. Whether the performance of the petitioner was poor or not is a subjective matter to be ascertained by the authorities. The Court cannot substitute its own views merely because a different view may also be possible based on the allegation against him and his defence. The respondents are best suited to decide on the utility of the appointed person for meeting targets. To 3 that extent the Court finds no merit in the writ application. But even if the petitioner was appointed on contract, he cannot be subjected to arbitrariness and hostile discrimination. The contention before the Court is that others who failed to meet targets and stood on a lesser point than that of the petitioner have been retained while the petitioner has been singled out for such discriminatory treatment. Unfortunately, There are no specific pleadings to that effect identifying such persons by name who may have had lesser target achieved then the petitioner with a specific assertion that they have been retained. Moreover from the reply to the show cause notice filed by the petitioner on 22.9.2010 it does not appear that any such objection was taken on his behalf. It is not permissible for this Court to test the impugned orders on grounds not urged before the authorities and then decide its validity. If so advised, the petitioner may represent before the respondents drawing their attention to the fact that persons who had also not achieved targets and allegedly their figures were below that of the petitioner even have been 4 retained subjecting him to hostile discrimination. If the petitioner files any such representation within a period of four weeks from today, the Court requires the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law and then pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of six weeks from thereafter. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)