Dr. Krishna Mohan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1854 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2122 of 2014 =========================================================== Dr. Krishna Mohan Singh .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar For Respondent No. 2 :
Mr. K. K. Sinha =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-09-2015 *************** 16.09.2015 The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, both on the restoration application as well as the writ application.
The restoration application is allowed for the reasons indicated in paragraph 4 thereof. Accordingly, C.W.J.C. No. 2122 of 2014 is restored to its original file. Prayer in the writ application of the petitioner is that a mandamus should be issued upon the respondents to continue his engagement as a Medical Officer on contract basis in the Primary Health Centre in the district of Vaishali on the ground that his service has been satisfactory and there are no allegations against him.
The engagement of the petitioner was strictly
Patna High Court MJC No.1854 of 2015 dt.16-09-2015 2/2 in terms of the agreement reached between the parties. No doubt, the service has been extended from time to time, but the nature of such engagement does not change. If the authorities have come to an opinion that the petitioner's service is no longer required and that they refused to extend the contract, the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the State authorities to subsist with a contract, even though they do not want to or for some of the reasons indicated in the counter affidavit.
If the non-extension amounts to breach of the terms of the contract, petitioner will have common law remedy and not extraordinary remedy.
Writ application, therefore, stands dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) U SKM/-