Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku.Ruchi Dantare vs State Of M.P. on 29 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9820
1 WP-8815-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8815 of 2012
KU.RUCHI DANTARE
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.B.S.Tomar - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta- learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated
10/10/2011 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No.3, wherein her
contractual appointment on the post of Assistant Warden has been cancelled.
She has also challenged order dated 10/04/2012 (Annexure-P/1) passed by
respondent No.2, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
was appointed as Assistant Warden vide order dated 10/11/2009 (Annexure-
P/4) and was posted at Kasturba Gandhi Government School Hostel, Baroda,
District- Sheopur (M.P.). The order of appointment dated 10/11/2009 reveals
that appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis for a period of six
months which could be extended after evaluation of the satisfactory
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9820
2 WP-8815-2012
performance. It is further revealed that the petitioner was required to stay in
the hostel during night also and further that in case of any adverse report, her
contractual services were liable to be cancelled without assigning any
reason. The petitioner accordingly joined in the hostel as Assistant Warden
and was so working there.
3. One Smt. Niranjana Gupta was given charge of the post of Warden
in the Kasturba Gandhi Government School Hostel where the petitioner was
working as Assistant Warden. It appears that there was total lack of
coordination between Smt. Niranjana Gupta and the petitioner. On complaint
being received, inspection was made by the District Project Coordinator
alongwith Assistant Project Coordinator, District Education Centre, Sheopur
(M.P.) on three different dates and report was submitted on 15/07/2011
(Annexure-R/1). From the report, it is evident that during inspection on
29.06.2011, the statements of Smt. Niranjana Gupta (Warden) and the
petitioner (Assistant Warden) were taken. Also the statements of the cook,
Chowkidar and students staying in the hostel were also recorded. It was
reported by the Committee that there was total lack of coordination between
the Warden and Assistant Warden. As per statement of Chowkidar- Rakesh,
there was quarrel between the Warden and the petitioner in relation to
registers maintained in the hostel and on 28/06/2011, the petitioner locked
the warden which could be opened only after interference by the police. The
cook- Smt. Phoolwati confirmed quarrel between the Warden and the
petitioner and also stated that the petitioner stopped her from cooking food
and further that the petitioner's father and brother used to threaten her. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9820
3 WP-8815-2012
statement of another cook- Smt. Seeta Bai reveals that the petitioner used to
stop her from cooking food. The students staying in the hostel also stated
about the inter-se dispute between the Warden and the petitioner because of
which their studies affected. It was also stated that the students were not
served breakfast and further the lunch was not served till 12:00 PM. It is
further informed that about 30 students left the hostel because of the quarrel
between the Warden and the petitioner.
4 . As per the report, during the surprise inspection made on
05/07/2011, the petitioner was found absent in the hostel. The students
informed that the petitioner did not stay in the hostel in the night and comes
at 10:00 a.m. and leave at 6:00 p.m.
5. Acting upon the aforesaid report, a show-cause notice was issued to
the petitioner as also Smt. Niranjana Gupta on 23/07/2011 which are filed as
Annexure R/2 & R/7) respectively. The petitioner submitted her response on
25/07/2014 which is filed as Annexure- P/7 alongwith the rejoinder. After
considering the report submitted by the Committee and her reply, the
petitioner's contractual services on the post of Assistant Warden have been
cancelled vide impugned order dated 10/10/2011 (Annexure- P/2). The
appeal filed against the said order is also dismissed by the Commissioner,
Chambal Division, Morena, vide order dated 10/04/2012 (Annexure- P/1).
Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached before this
Court.
6 . Admittedly, the petitioner's services were purely contractual in
nature and liable to be dispensed with without assigning any reason. Further,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9820
4 WP-8815-2012
the appointment was made only for a period of six months. Though, the
period was liable to be extended on her satisfactory performance, from the
record, it appears that no formal order was passed extending the period of her
contractual services. It is a settled legal preposition that contract of personal
service is not enforceable in law. This has been so held by the Apex Court in
the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N. Goyal reported in (2008)
8 SCC 92 wherein the Apex Court held in para 17 as under:-
"17. Where the relationship of master and servant is purely
contractual, it is well settled that a contract of personal service is
not specifically enforceable, having regard to the bar contained in
Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even if the
termination of the contract of employment (by dismissal or
otherwise) is found to be illegal or in breach, the remedy of the
employee is only to seek damages and not specific performance.
Courts will neither declare such termination to be a nullity nor
declare that the contract of employment subsists nor grant the
consequential relief of reinstatement. The three well-recognised
exceptions to this rule are:
(i) where a civil servant is removed from service in
contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India (or any law made under Article
309);
(ii) where a workman having the protection of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is wrongly terminated
from service; and
(iii) where an employee of a statutory body is
terminated from service in breach or violation of any
mandatory provision of a statute or statutory rules.
There is thus a clear distinction between public employment
governed by statutory rules and private employment governed
purely by contract. The test for deciding the nature of relief
damages or reinstatement with consequential reliefs-is whether the
employment is governed purely by contract or by a statute or
statutory rules. Even where the employer is a statutory body,
where the relationship is purely governed by contract with no
element of statutory governance, the contract of personal service
will not be specifically enforceable. Conversely, where the
employer is a non-statutory body, but the employment is governed
by a statute or statutory rules, a declaration that the termination is
null and void and that the employee should be reinstated can be
granted by courts. (Vide S.B. Dutt (Dr.) v. University of Delhi,
U.P. Warehousing Corpn. v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, Sirsi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9820
5 WP-8815-2012
Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, Vaish Degree College
v. Lakshmi Narain, J. Tiwari v. Jwala Devi Vidya Mandirs and
Dipak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instruction.)"
7. Relying upon the Apex Court's judgment in the case of S.N. Goyal
(supra), this Court in the case of Hemant Kumar Shrivasatava and Anr. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. passed in W.P. No.6502/2017 held in para 14 as
under:-
"14. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the considered opinion that in absence of any substantive right in
favour of the petitioners, no direction can be issued to the
respondents to continue the petitioners in service."
8. Considering the aforesaid legal position, it is found that the relief
claimed by the petitioner in the petition cannot be granted to her. The
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order
is stigmatic in nature and could not have been passed without affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner also cannot be accepted in absence of
any right in petitioner's favour.
9 . Even otherwise, from reading the detailed report submitted by the
Committee filed as Annexure-R/1 by the respondents, it is gathered that the
statement of the petitioner was recorded alongwith other persons. Further,
she was issued a show-cause notice on 23/07/2011 and she submitted her
reply on 25/07/2011. Thus, it cannot be said that the opportunity of hearing
was not granted to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has failed to give any
reason as to why everybody in the hostel would depose against her without
any reason. The fact that she locked the Warden in the room and police had
to intervene, is sufficient enough to infer improper behaviour and working of
the petitioner which is not tolerable in the girls hostel. The report of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9820
6 WP-8815-2012
committee is based upon the statements given by the students stating about
petitioner's improper behaviour. Thus, it cannot be held that cancellation of
petitioner's contractual service by the impugned order is based upon no
material. Therefore, in absence of any right with the petitioner, impugned
orders are not liable for interference by this Court in the instant writ petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation & Ors. Vs. Brijesh Kumar & Anr. passed in SLP (C) No.10546
of 2019. However, it is found that the facts of the said case were different
inasmuch as termination order was passed without holding any enquiry/or
without issuance of show-cause notice and affording opportunity of hearing
to the employee concerned in that context, the Apex Court set-aside the order
of termination. However, in the present case, the enquiry was conducted by
two members Committee wherein the petitioner was also called for giving
her statement, thereafter, show-cause notice was issued and reply was also
submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra) is distinguishable on
facts and the petitioner does not get any help from the said judgment.
1 1 . In view of the discussion of facts and law made above, no
interference is warranted in this petition. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9820
7 WP-8815-2012
rahul
