A single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's dismissal from service. The court held that the petitioner's one-year contractual appointment had lapsed, so Article 311(2) protection did not apply, and the writ petition lacked merit.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded to the parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6505 of 2006
Radha Kumari …… Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand and Ors. …… Respondents
--------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : J.C. to G.A 0 ---------
06/Dated: 10th October, 2014
The instant case has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 5.4.2006 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service with immediate effect. The main ground taken by the petitioner for assailing the order dated 5.4.2006 is that before passing an impugned order, no notice or no principle of natural justice has been followed. Hence, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law.
However, the direction had been given to the respondents authority to file counter affidavit, but no counter -affidavit has been filed till date.
That after perusing the order dated 5.4. 2006, it is ample clear that the appointment of the petitioner has been made on 1.1.2006 for a period of one year. However, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.4.2006 only in the month of November, 2006, even assuming that the prayer of the writ petition is allowed the petitioner will also be permitted to discharge his duty on the wish of the respondent authority for the period of two months only. However, the said period has also lapsed way back in the month of January, 2007. But, the fact remains that since the appointment of the petitioner is on contractual basis for a period of one year hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be given protection as enshrined under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
In view of the facts stated hereinabove, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. Hence the same is dismissed, however as to no costs.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Nibha/Tarun
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner dismissed from service is entitled to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal order was barred by lapsed appointment period.
Radha Kumari
State of Jharkhand
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
