Sandhya v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
Patna High Court CWJC No.7943 of 2013 (5) dt.31-01-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7943 of 2013 ======================================================
1. Sandhya W/O Sri Uday Shankar Prakash Resident Of Indira Nagar, Road No. -8a (Near Hanuman Mandir), Postal Park, P.S. - Jakkanpur, District - Patna - 800001 .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna
3. District Magistrate-Cum-Chairman, District Health Society, Nawada, District - Nawada
4. Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer-Cum-Secretary, District Health Soceity, Nawada, District - Nawada .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-3 : Ms. Neelam Kumari, AC to SC-3 : Mr. Arjun Prasad, AC to SC-3 For the State Health Society: Mr. K.K. Sinha, Mr. Shashi Shekhar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 31-01-2018 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed for quashing the order dated 07.11.2012 by which services of the petitioner was terminated by the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Health Society, Nawada. Petitioner was appointed on the post of District Programme Manager on contractual basis for three years on consolidated amount of Rs. 23000/-per month under the National Rural Health Commission Scheme and appointment was
Patna High Court CWJC No.7943 of 2013 (5) dt.31-01-2018 coterminous with the scheme or three years whichever is earlier. Pursuant to direction of Hon'ble Patna High Court with respect to irregularities committed by petitioner, same was examined by the District Magistrate and her services were terminated, when in inquiry she was found guilty. The agreement of contractual appointment was liable for termination on one months notice. The appointment of petitioner on 21.06.2010 was for three years period and after lapse of three years, contract appointment came to end, as such, no relief can be granted to petitioner as contractual period of appointment is over and, as such, present writ petition has become infructuous and is being dismissed as becoming infructuous.
(S. Kumar, J) veena/- U