Patna High Court
Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 18 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18829 of 2016
======================================================
Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha Son of Late Sameshwar Prasad, resident of Mo-
halla - Awadhpuri, Road No. 4 Chandawa Morh Ara, P.S. Ara Nawada, Dis-
trict - Bhojpur Ara
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director Account Administration and Self Employment District Rural
Development Authority Bhojpur
3. The State Project Director Bihar Education Project Council Education
Bhawan, Patna - 4
4. The District Collector, Bhojpur at Ara
5. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur at Ara
6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhojpur at Ara
7. The District Programme officer Establishment , Bhojpur at Ara
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Maya Shankar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Madanjit Singh- GP 20
For the BEPC : Mr. Girijest Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-05-2022
Heard learned counsel for respective parties.
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the fol-
lowing reliefs:-
"For quashing the office order
bearing Memo No. 2126 Bhojpur dated
15.06.2016 issued under the signature of Dis-
trict Education Officer, Bhojpur whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been
removed/terminated from the post Data Entry
Operator with immediate effect illegally and
arbitrary manner by violation of the principle
of natural justice and further for issuance of a
direction upon the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner on his post with all legal and con-
Patna High Court CWJC No.18829 of 2016 dt.18-05-2022
sequential benefits attached to the said case
from the date of the issuance of the said or-
der."
Petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator on con-
tract basis in the year 1998. It was renewed from time to time and
the renewal was made upto 31st March, 2015, thereafter, in the ab-
sence of specific order petitioner was continued in service. The of-
ficial respondents have taken note of petitioner's work and it was
not satisfactory, therefore, notice was issued to the petitioner,
thereafter, proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner on
15.06.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently con-
tended that no reasons have been assigned in the order of termina-
tion, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to know the reason as to
why his services have been terminated.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents con-
tended that in the absence of renewal of his tenure contract ap-
pointment beyond 31st March, 2015 petitioner is not entitle to con-
tinue in service. However, he was continued in service in the ab-
sence of specific order of renewal. Therefore, formalities of notice
were issued before his termination. Perusal of record and his work
was not satisfactory, thereafter, notice was issued and order of ter-
mination was passed. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.18829 of 2016 dt.18-05-2022
of termination read with the status of the petitioner that he is
seized to be Data Entry Operator as on 31st March, 2015.
Heard learned counsel for respective parties.
Crux of the matter in the present petition is whether peti-
tioner is entitled to know the reason for his termination and is he
entitled to domestic inquiry before his termination or not?
Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was working as
Data Entry Operator from the year 1998 and it was renewed from
time to time and such renewal was upto 31 st March, 2015. In the
absence of specific order of renewal, the petitioner continued in
service beyond such renewal. During the intervening period from
31st March 2015 till date of termination on 15.06.2016, the official
respondents have taken note off petitioner's unsatisfactory work,
in the result notice was issued for termination and termination or-
der was passed on 15.06.2016.
In the light of these facts and circumstances, reasons are
not warranted in the termination order, since, petitioner's renewal
of contract appointment was upto 31st March, 2015. Petitioner has
not made out a case to obtain extension of contract appointment
beyond 31st March, 2015 and so also has not filed a petition before
this Court seeking direction to the official respondents to renew his
contract appointment beyond 31st March, 2015.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18829 of 2016 dt.18-05-2022
In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner has not made
out a case. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date N/A
