Devi Prasad Chandrakar vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition to the order dated 04.04.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector-cum-Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bilaspur, whereby the contract period has not been extended. The facts of the case, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner, by order dated 12.08.1995 was appointed as Block Resource Centre Coordinator (for short ''the BRCC'') for a period of one year. Till the impugned order was passed. The petitioner had filed a writ petition for regularization of his service, which is pending consideration. However, by the impugned order dated 04.04.2012, the services of the petitioner has come to an end as no extension of contract period was granted.

Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working as BRCC for the last 17 years. His annual confidential report is also maintained every year. Under clause 75 of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Manual on Financial Management and Procurement, the BRCC is not responsible for submitting the utilization certificate. The ground taken for removal form service that his services were not found satisfactory, is baseless and he has been continuing in service for about 17 years and at no point of time, he has been served with any show cause notice. He next submits that the impugned order of removal from service is a stigmatic order and has caused prejudice to the petitioner.

On the other hand, Shri Thakur as well as Shri Kachhwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submit that in view of the nature of the appointment being contractual, the petitioner cannot claim extension of his service as a matter of right. Period of his services was not extended on the ground that his services were not found satisfactory and also the petitioner failed to submit utilization certificate against the advance amount granted under various heads.

Indisputably, the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis for a period of one year and the period was extended from year to year only for a period of one year. According to the petitioner, after the year 2002, no order extending the services of the petitioner was passed however, it was decided to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization.

There is no dispute that the appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis of recommendation made by the District Level Appointment Committee. However, it is not clear asto whether the appointment was made in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment i.e. by inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The appointment of the petitioner was temporary for a fixed period of one year. No document has been produced to establish that at nay point of time, the petitioner''s contract appointment was converted into regular appointment and as such he obtained any right under the contract appointment for continuation after the period of contract or extension of time is over under the provisions of law.

Reliane of Shri Shrivastava on Mrityunjay Shukla & Others v. Municipal Corporation Raipur & Others 2009 (1) CGLJ 97, is not relevant to the facts of the case on hand as in that case, the petitioners therein, were appointed against regular post and after completion of probation period, the order of termination was passed which was not a termination simplicitor but with stigma. Thus, the same was quashed.

In Akhtar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others W.P. (S) 488/2008, decided on 23.06.2008, the services of the employee was terminated before completion of the contract period on accusation of serious financial irregularities in purchase of various articles. This is not a case where the services of the petitioner has been terminated, but the period of contract has not been extended.

It is well settled principle of law that the contract appointee has no right to continue in service, after the period of contract is over. Even if it is held that the period of contract of the petitioner has not been extended on account of certain allegations, no direction can be issued to the employer to extend the services of the petitioner as Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Seva (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2004 (for short ''the Niyam''), provides that on being successful satisfactory service, the employee may be considered for extension of time. Rule 11 of the Niyam, reads as under:

Period of Appointment. - Normally contract appointment shall be merely for a year. The department may take decision to extend the period of appointment as per the necessity and on assessing the suitability of the person appointed on contract. On expiry of the period of the Contract appointment, automatically contract appointment shall stand terminated.

On bare perusal of Rule 11 of the Niyam, which deals with service conditions of contract appointees, it is not obligatory to extend the period of appointment even if the petitioner appointed on contractual basis, on assessment has been found suitable. Thus the petitioner has not acquired any right even under the provisions of law, as aforestated.

The petitioner has not acquired any right for continuation of service after contract period is over. Thus, no relief as sought for can be granted for extension of contract period. This Court cannot direct the employer to pass an order, which is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law.

In view of the above, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as sought for in this petition. Thus, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs.