Manish Bihari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7708 of 2014 =========================================================== Manish Bihari, son of Sri Bipin Bihary, Resident of Flat No.-42, Ganga Mahal Apartment, J.C. Road, Antaghat, Patna, P.S. Pirbahore, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The Joint Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Bihar, Patna

3. The Deputy Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Bihar, Patna

4. The Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

5. The Deputy Director (Planning), Science and Technology Department, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binodjee Verma, GP-17 Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, GP-17 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-01-2015 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2013 (Annexure-7) passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.4) whereby the prayer of the petitioner for extension of his contractual appointment has been rejected.

It is common case of the parties that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis on the post of lecturer at New Government Polytechnic, Patna. It is also not in dispute that subsequently contractual appointment of the petitioner was not renewed and at the relevant time, when the impugned order was passed, the contract between the petitioner and the respondents does not survive.

Now, the law has been well settled by a constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of

Patna High Court CWJC No.7708 of 2014 dt.29-01-2015 2/2 Karnatka & Anr. V. Uma Devi(3) and others [(2006)4 SCC 1 particularly paragraph 43 that the contractual appointment comes to an end with the end of contract. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the fact that there is no subsisting contract for the post in question as also for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.07.2013 (Annexure-7). Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.

However, if fresh selection process is started, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply afresh and his case shall be considered in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present order. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/- U