Termination of contractual employment must adhere to principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness, ensuring equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

(SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.)

Challenging the proceedings dated 30.08.2024 issued by respondent No.3 terminating the services of the petitioner as Joint Executive officer, the above writ petition is filed.

2. Facts in brief, as per the writ affidavit, the Government introduced a scheme i.e. ‘Arogya Andhra Pradesh’ with an endeavour to provide quality healthcare to the poor. The Government, for effective implementation of the scheme, formed respondent No.2-Trust, under the Chairmanship of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent No.3 is the executive authority of the Trust. A paper publication was issued on 28.06.2019 for filling up the post of Joint Executive Officer (Dental) (for short ‘JEO’). The petitioner, after undergoing the selection process, was appointed as JEO on a contract basis, for one year. The petitioner was responsible for multiple dental clinics and approval of claims raised under the scheme, for further approval by his seniors, including respondent No.3. The petitioner’s services were renewed every year and the petitioner’s term was completed on 24.07.2024. However, the petitioner’s services were continued with an assurance that regular renewal proceedings would be issued soon.

b) While so, on 08.08.2024, the petitioner was summoned by an enquiry committee constituted to inquire into the allegations raised by Sridevi Smile Dental Clinic, Kadapa, calling for his explanation and the said notice was served on the petitioner on 28.08.2024. The petitioner by mail dated 30.08.2024 requested respondent No.3 to grant seven days to submit the explanation. On 30.08.2024 around 12:45 P.M. the enquiry committee summoned the petitioner to chambers and forced him to submit a reply to the show the cause notice with an overpayment was due to oversight. The approved claim amount, including the minor overpayment, did not exceed the pre-authorised amount. The inquiry report furnished to respondent no.3 with certain findings was prepared without the issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner.

c) On 03.09.2024, the petitioner was informed about his termination. A copy of the termination order was served on the petitioner on 05.09.2024, wherein it was stated that the petitioner’s services were no longer required given the expiry of his contract. The petitioner is entitled to fair, non- discriminatory treatment and parity with other employees. The services of the petitioner are still required, there was no reason to refuse to renew the petitioner’s contract while continuing the other employees. It is a settled position of law that even in the cases of contractual employment, no decision can be made arbitrarily. 30 days is required even for terminating a contract employee.assurance that there was no merit in the allegations raised by Sridevi Smile Dental Clinic and inquiry proceedings would be closed. The petitioner, in his reply dated 30.08.2024 stated that most of the cases mentioned in the show cause notice were not approved by him and the minor

3.a) A counter affidavit was filed for respondents 2 and 3. It was contended, interalia, that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner is a contractual employee, and his service can be terminated at any point as per the terms and conditions. The petitioner failed to explain the infringement of rights under Part III of the Constitution of India . It was not disputed about the petitioner’s appointment and his joining service, in pursuance of paper publication issued by the 2^nd respondent trust. After the expiry of the contract, the 2^nd respondent has decided not to extend the services of the petitioner, since his services are no longer required.

b) The complaints/petitions dated 10.07.2024, 07.08.2024 and 27.08.2024 were made by one Dr.Prasanna Kumar alleging that the petitioner caused mental agony by threatening to delist the hospital if his demands were not met. The 2^nd respondent received a complaint dated 07.08.2024 and 27.08.2024 from the Managing