The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's contract appointment. Held that the contract terms do not require a hearing before termination and lack statutory force for Article 226 enforcement.
Writ petition dismissed as it is devoid of merit; termination of contract upheld.
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.
CW 13763/09
//1//
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
Civil Writ Petition No.13763/2009 Ram Narayan Versus Development Officer & Ors.
Date of Order ::: 05/11/09
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, for petitioner
Petitioner was appointed as Gram Rozgar
Sahayak in Narega Scheme since the year 2007
purely on contract basis; however, has been
terminated vide order dt.21/10/09 (Ann.1) on
the premise that FIR-2/09 dt.08/01/09 was
registered against him for offence U/s 376, IPC
in which challan has also been filed as is
evident from Final report No.50/09 dt.15/07/09.
Counsel submits that in terms of
agreement, his services could not have been
terminated without affording opportunity of
hearing and that apart, he was granted
anticipatory bail U/s 438, CrPC by this Court
vide order dt.25/06/09 (Ann.3); in such
circumstances, very decision of the respondents
terminating his contract is arbitrary and in
violation of Art.14 of the Constitution.
Counsel further submits that order impugned is
stigmatic; as such it could not have been
terminated without affording opportunity of
hearing. In support, Counsel placed reliance
upon decision of this Court in Ramraj Gurjar
CW 13763/09
//2//
Vs. RSRTC & Others (2008 (UC) WLC Raj. p.485).
In the opinion of this Court,
submission made by Counsel is without merit for
the reason that petitioner was appointed purely
on contract basis on the terms & conditions of
the agreement executed between the parties and
In the instant case, the authority took
decision to terminate his contract on the
premise of FIR-2/09 for offence U/s 376, IPC, &
challan being filed against him on the basis of
statement U/s 164, CrPC recorded of the
prosecutrix. Cl.5 of the agreement only relates
to the concealment if any made by incumbent at
the time of his entry into service on contract
basis; however, it will not preclude the
authority in taking decision to terminate the
contract taking note of circumstances occurred
in course of incumbent being in service.
Judgment on which Counsel placed
reliance will not be of any assistance to him
for the reason that it was a case where
petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and
his services were extended from time to time
and on criminal case being registered, his
services were terminated. However, in instant
case, indisputably petitioner was appointed
purely on contract basis and his service
conditions are regulated in terms of the
CW 13763/09
//3//
agreement and not under any statutory rules. No
condition of agreement has been brought to the
notice of this Court which calls upon the
authority to give opportunity of hearing before
terminating the contract. That apart, terms &
conditions of agreement executed does not have
any statutory force which can be enforced
U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, writ petition being
devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
K.Khatri/p3/
13763CW09-Nov5DsContrAppt.doc
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's contract of appointment can be terminated on the basis of allegations in an FIR and challan without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
Whether the agreement between the parties has statutory force enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution upon termination.
Whether Article 14 protects a contract-based appointment from arbitrary termination based on pending criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramraj Gurjar Vs. RSRTC & OthersDistinguished¶14
(2008 (UC) WLC Raj. p.485)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Narayan
Development Officer & Ors.
Ajay Rastogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court