IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1179 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3418 of 2011 ====================================================== Prem Chandra Ojha, S/o Late Jai Narain Ojha, R/o Mohalla 143, Anandpuri, P.S. S.K. Puri, Distt.-Patna .... .... (Petitioner)-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Women Development Corporation through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Main (Old) Secretariat, Patna, 3. Managing Director, Women Development Corporation, 2nd Floor, Indira Bhawan, R.C. Singh Path, Bailey Road, Patna-800001 .... .... Respondents –Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Prem Chandra Ojha (In person). For the respondent no. 1: Mr. Dhurandhar Prasad Choudhary, SC 2. For the respondent nos. 2 & 3: Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 15-09-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12th July 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 3418 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant has appeared in person. We have heard the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar appearing for the respondents - Women Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Patna High Court LPA No.1179 of 2011 (3) dt.15-09-2011 2 / 4 2 Corporation”). On 10th June 2010, the Corporation gave a Public Notice inviting applications from suitable personnel for appointment to various posts under the Corporation on contract basis. One of the posts advertised was that of Desk Officer on consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs. 12,000-15,000/-. Applications were invited for the post of Desk Officer from the persons who have retired from the State or Central Government Offices or Public Sector Undertakings. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the appellant applied for the post of Desk Officer. He was selected and offered appointment on 24th August 2010. The appellant accepted the said appointment. The terms and conditions of the said appointment provided inter alia that the appointment would be on probation initially for three months; the appointment was contractual for a period of one year including the period of probation; and that the employment was terminable by giving one month’s notice in writing or on payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice. Pursuant to the said appointment, the appellant joined as Desk Officer on 24th August 2010. The Corporation, under its communication dated 21st January 2011, terminated the contract of employment and paid one month’s salary to the appellant in lieu of one month’s notice. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed above CWJC No. 3418 of 2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the premise that the termination of service of the petitioner was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the employment agreement. Therefore, the present Appeal. The appellant has assailed the impugned order made by Patna High Court LPA No.1179 of 2011 (3) dt.15-09-2011 3 / 4 3 the learned single Judge. He has submitted that the pre-mature termination of the service of the appellant casts stigma on the appellant. Even though the order of termination of service was in consonance with the terms and conditions of employment agreement, the learned single Judge ought to have interfered. He has submitted that since his joining the Corporation, the appellant noticed several irregularities in the administration of the Corporation. He accordingly notified such irregularities to the Corporation; such as continuance of the employees beyond the permissible age. He has submitted that the appellant had completed three months’ probation period satisfactorily as evidenced from the noting (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). On his request, the Corporation had placed the appellant on higher monthly remuneration of Rs. 15,000/-. Nevertheless, on account of the appellant’s tendency not to ignore the irregularities and illegalities committed around him and his making complaints against such officers, his service has been terminated pre-maturely. The action of the Corporation is clearly vitiated by mala fide. Such action could not have been sustained by the learned single Judge. The Appeal is contested by the Corporation. Learned Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar has appeared for the Corporation. He has relied upon the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition. The Corporation has denied the allegation of mala fide made by the appellant. It is stated, “the petitioner on several occasions denied to perform the tasks assigned by the authorities”. We agree with the learned single Judge that the matter falls in the realm of contract. The order of termination of service has been made in consonance with the terms and conditions of the employment agreement. No interference is, therefore, warranted. Patna High Court LPA No.1179 of 2011 (3) dt.15-09-2011 4 / 4 4 Besides, the period of one year of employment has now expired. Therefore also, no relief can be granted to the appellant. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)