16. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in GRIDCO Ltd. Vs. Sadananda Doloi (supra), it cannot be said that the non-extension of the engagement of the petitioner is illegal, perverse, unreasonable, unfair or irrational. Just because similarly situated persons have had their contractual period extended beyond 31.03.2017, does not give the petitioner any vested right to have his contractual engagement extended. In the case of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar (supra), the Apex Court held that no relief beyond the contract period can be given by the Tribunal or the High Court, as the appointment itself was for a fixed period. Thus, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar (supra), no relief for extension of his engagement period can be given by this Court. The question of considering extension of the petitioner’s contractual period had been left to the discretion of the respondent authorities in terms of the Order dated 11.04.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 2509/2017. However, the respondent authorities declined to allow the petitioner to rejoin his duty, on the ground that he did not have the basic knowledge of Pharmacist, to work in public health facilities dealing with the patient community. As the question of competence of the petitioner as a Pharmacist is best left to the experts, keeping in view the fact that this Court is not equipped to deal with the said issue, this Court cannot substitute its views, with the views made by the State Level Committee under the Chairmanship of the Executive Director, NHM, Assam.
