therefore, when the said scheme is in continuance, the respondents could not have terminated the services of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge as could be seen from a perusal of the judgment and order, sought to be reviewed, did not deal with the said aspect of the matter. A perusal of paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment and order, sought to be reviewed would show what the learned Single Judge considered while allowing the writ petition was that no notice was issued to the petitioner with regard to his detention in Nalbari Jail for more than 48 hours in connection with Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 116/2008. It was also observed that merely because the petitioner is a contractual employee, it does not give the respondents the unbridled power to terminate the petitioner in the manner they so desire as has been done in the instant case and it was incumbent upon the respondents to first hear the petitioner before terminating him from the services which however was not done. On the basis of the said finding, the learned Single Judge had held that the communication dated 06.10.2009 stood vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and accordingly, set aside and quashed. However, the learned Single Judge further went ahead to direct reinstatement of the petitioner back in the service from the date of termination dated 06.10.2009 along with backwages without taking into consideration whether the petitioner’s service stood extended beyond 31.03.2010. The learned Single Judge also did not take into consideration as to whether the contractual appointment of the petitioner was coterminous with any scheme in which he was appointed and without there being finding to that effect, this Court is of the opinion that directing reinstatement by the judgment sought to be reviewed in the
