Shikha Kumari v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10543 of 2008 =========================================================== Shikha Kumari wife of Shailendra Kumar, Resident of Ganga Bharti Publication, Lakhani Sagar, District- Darbhanga.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India, though the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of School Education and Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 113331.

2. The Deputy Secretary-cum-National Project Director, Mahila Samakha Ministry of Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 113331.

3. The State Programme Co-director, Bihar Mahila Samakhya Society, Department of Human Resource Development, Patna Mahesh Bhawan, Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan, Patna.

4. The Bihar Strate Mahila Samakhya Society, Patna. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Harish Kumar, G.P.30 For the Respondents Bihar Mahila Samakhya Society :

Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-07-2015 Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-1 which is an order dated 25.09.2007 by which her appointment on the basis of short term contract on the post of State Programme Co-ordinator was not extended for another term.

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on short term contract basis only for one year.

It is contended that Clause-II clearly indicates that the Bihar State Mahila Samakhya Society could well have extended the period of contract for one year or more on the basis of satisfactory services of the concerned.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10543 of 2008 dt.13-07-2015 2/2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that a decision for not extending the contract of the petitioner was taken on 17.08.2007 itself. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was discontinued from 27.09.2007 by the order dated 25.09.2007 as contained in Annexure-1. It was a short term contract and thereafter, several other persons might have been given the contract and the next person who was chosen for appointment on the concerned post on contract post was Pramila Kumari but her contract also being for one year might have also expired. Therefore, now extension of the contract, which was not extended in the year 2007, would not be possible.

Contract was for a short period of one year and that was not extended and thereafter, about eight years have admittedly expired. Thus, in my considered opinion, now any relief to that extent for extension of short term contract for one year cannot be granted. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) N.H./- U