IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16842 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR JHA, S/O BIND NARAIN JHA, R/O VILLAGE-MANDRI, P.O.-SIBAISINGPUR, P.S.- MOHIUDDINNAGAR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT T.B.CONTROL COMMITTEE, SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT T.B.CONTROL COMMITTEE, SAMASTIPUR. 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, DISTRICT T.B.CONTROL COMMITTEE, SAMASTIPUR. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 21.10.2011 Petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order of the District Tuberculosis Officer, Samastipur dated 07.04.2008, as contained in Annexure- 7, by which on the ground of bad performance his contractual appointment as Senior Treatment Supervisor was not renewed. Grievance of the petitioner is that one Amarjeet Kumar, who also got the same percentage in respect of the performance, was re-engaged, whereas this petitioner was denied re-engagement. A counter affidavit has been in the case in which it is explained that this petitioner was performing duty of Senior 2 Treatment Officer and was provided with a two wheeler and was expected to move in the field and collect the patients for their tests and treatment, whereas the said Amarjeet Kumar was Senior Treatment Laboratory Supervisor and his duty was to supervise the tests and treatment of the patients in the laboratory. It is explained that, in fact, the working of the said Amarjeet Kumar was dependent on the working of the petitioner. Since due to bad performance of the petitioner the working of the said Amarjeet Kumar had also suffered, hence, both of them were given the same percentage in performance of duties. However, the contractual appointment of the said Amarjeet kumar was renewed with a warning, but the petitioner’s engagement was not found fit to be renewed. This Court finds that there is a reasonable and plausible explanation for not renewing the contractual appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find it appropriate to issue any direction in favour of the petitioner. 3 However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s contractual appointment was not renewed only to accommodate one Dinesh Singh whose contractual appointment was somewhere else. He also submits that still there is a vacancy available against which the petitioner can be considered for his re- engagement. This matter is for the respondents to consider and this Court refrains from issuing any direction in this regard. However, respondents may re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the experience gain by him, if they so chose to do. The writ application is disposed of. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)