7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and argues that the petitioner being a contractual appointee, his service is guided by the agreement entered between the respondent-authorities and the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has joined the respondent-Corporation on 25.06.2012, purely on contractual basis for one year and the contract was to be extended further by the competent authority on completion of satisfactory service. As per the terms of the contract, the petitioner shall not be treated as government servant and he will not be entitled for any service benefits meant for the regular employees. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner used to submit the erroneous bills that too with delay before the concerned authorities, which has subsequently been rectified by the respondent-authorities, which shows that the petitioner is habituated negligent towards his duties against the conditions of the contract agreement. Hence, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his negligence, malafide and irresponsible behaviour in performing his work and as such, the law decided by the Hon’ble Court that one contractual employee cannot be substituted by another contractual employee is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed against sanctioned and vacant post is of no help to him since the show-cause notice has been issued to him for his dereliction of duties. Learned counsel further argues that in clause-7 of the agreement, it is clearly mentioned that after appointment on contractual basis there will be no claim for regularization. Learned counsel accordingly submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition is fit be dismissed.
