Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13737 of 2013 ====================================================== Smt. Bharti Mishra W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, R/o Rampur, P.S. Jamhaura, District-Aurangabad. . ... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 3. Director, Mid Day Meal Plan, Patna. 4. Sudhir Kumar, District Incharge Officer, Mid. Day Meal Plan, Aurangabad. 5. District Education Officer, Aurangabad, Bihar. 6. District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad. 7. Block Development Officer, Barun, Aurangabad.. ... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Namrta Mishra, GP 17. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 22-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application:- "To quash the order dated 31.5.2013 passed by District Incharge Officer, Mid Day Meal Plan, Aurangabad by which the extension of period for the distribution of Mid Day Meal Plan in Barun Block district-Aurangabad for the period 2013-14 on the post of BRP has been rejected and order has been also passed to lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner. " Assailing the impugned order passed by the District Mid Day Meal Project Officer, Aurangabad, whereby and whereunder the contractual services of the petitioner and one Madheshwar Singh was refused to be extended and also a 2
Legal Reasoning
direction for lodging First Information Report against them was issued, learned counsel has submitted that the allegations, which were made against the petitioner were actually not found to be true in course of earlier enquiry conducted by the Block Development Officer as would be borne out from his report dated 20.12.2012. He has also submitted that whatever explanations were given by the petitioner has not at all been considered while refusing to extend services of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, there are two situations which may be faced by employee engaged on contractual basis. If in the midst of such contract, while the tenure of the contract is yet to be completed if the services of such person is sought to be terminated, he or she may definitely make a grievance of being removed unceremoniously but where in a case after the completion of period of tenure of contract a decision is to be taken as to whether such period of contract should be extended order, the authorities will definitely be entitled to look into the performance of the person concerned in the period of earlier tenure of contract. Once, therefore, the authorities would make their such evaluation and refuse to give further extension of contract that would come within the realm private law and for that the remedy for any person engaged on a contractual basis will only be filing of 3 a civil suit for establishing that the act of the person concerned refusing to extend contract was arbitrary and contrary of the terms and conditions of the contract. This Court, however, would find that in the present case when the contract of the petitioner and others including Madheshwar Singh was sought to be extended reports were obtained from all the controlling authorities since there were allegation against Madheshwar Singh and the petitioner, an enquiry was also made and in course of enquiry it was found that the petitioner had indulged in nefarious activities including demanding money from the headmistress whose functioning were being supervised by the petitioner. In fact, in course of such enquiry it also transpired that the petitioner had also given lesser amount of one quintal rice in the school as was confirmed by the headmistress of Uchcha Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Barun. In such a situation, if the authorities after considering the materials on record in the proceeding of the meeting held on 31.05.2013 had refused extension of service of the petitioner and Madheshwar Singh, this Court would not find any error in such decision specially when such acts of the petitioner has also constituted the ingredients of criminal offence for which First Information Report has also been drawn against her. 4 This Court, in fact, has approved the same impugned order in case of Madheshwar Singh on 01.07.2013 passed in CWJC no. 12024 of 2013 wherein it had been held as follows:- "Having regard to the fact that the petitioner's services were not being utilized in the Mid Day Meal Scheme and his last extension of service was from 11.04.2012 to 31.03.2013, this Court would not find any error in the decision of the authority in not giving further extension to the petitioner when they had prima facie material to believe that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory. The issue as to whether the petitioner had committed any embezzlement of Government fund which has led to filing of the criminal case against him or that the petitioner was absolutely made victim of the circumstances can be appreciated only after disposal of the criminal case, inasmuch as, if in the criminal case he gets a clean acquittal, he can definitely demonstrate before the authority that his being denied extension of contract in the Mid Day Meal Scheme was based on non est and non existent material. Till the criminal case against the contractual employee would continue, he cannot claim extension of service as a matter of right because it is the part of condition of the 5 contractual employment that his services shall remain satisfactory. That being so, this Court would not interefere with the impugned order refusing to grant further extension of service to the petitioner on contract basis beyond 31.03.2013 as also lodging the criminal case. Liberty however is given to the petitioner to approach the competent authority including the Director, Mid Day Meal Scheme after conclusion of the criminal case in the event the petitioner gets clean acquittal in the criminal case. "
Decision
This writ application is therefore also disposed of in the same terms by observing that if the petitioner would be given clean acquittal in the pending criminal case against her she would approach the Director, Mid Day Meal Scheme, for consequential relief including her being taken back in service. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. A.Ahmad/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)