← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/12686/2011dismissed

Mayanand Bishwas v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-07-03Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12686 of 2011 =========================================================== Mayanand Bishwas S/O Nandlal Bishwas R/O Village - Parsauni, P.S. - Sadar (Purnea), District - Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

3. The Dy. Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

4. The District Magistrate, Purnea, District - Purnea

5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Purnea, District - Purnea

6. The Block Development Officer, Dagarura, District - Purnea

7. The Programme Officer, Dagarura, District - Purnea .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. SHARDA NAND MISHRA For the Respondent/s : Mr. NIRBHAY K.SINGH GP26 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-07-2018 From the order as contained in Annexure-8 passed by the Dy. Development Commissioner, Purnea it is evident that the petitioner being a contract employee has been removed in terms of Clause 3 of the Contract whereunder the competent authority was entitled to review his contract with the petitioner based on his performance and in case the competent authority was not satisfied with the performance the petitioner could have been removed by terminating his contract.

The materials available on the record show that there had been an enquiry with regard to certain acts and omissions, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12686 of 2011 dt.03-07-2018 2/2 petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause and only after receipt of the show cause, the decision as contained in Annexure-8 was taken whereunder the competent authority has simply terminated the contract on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. This Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The Writ Application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Dilip, AR AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 05.07.2018 Transmission Date N/A