The communication regarding non-renewal was not stigmatic, and the authority to terminate the service was upheld.

JUDGMENT

Sunil B. Shukre, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner 'Lab Technician', having been appointed on contractual basis for every year till 2019-20, was not continued with his contractual service with effect from 01.04.2020. The petitioner was informed by the communication dated 31.03.2022 that his contractual service came to an end on 31.03.2020 and since it was decided to not renew it, it would not be renewed any further. He was relieved from the job by the respondent no.2.

3. On such non-renewal of the contractual service of the petitioner, the petitioner made an enquiry and learnt that submission of false report by the Committee of which Civil Surgeon, Wardha was a part that the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory was the basis for the decision to not renew his contractual service. The petitioner laid his hand on a communication dated 23.10.2020 and also some other documents which indicated that the record was created against the petitioner regarding non-satisfactory performance of his contractual service. Therefore, the petitioner has also questioned the legality and correctness of the communication dated 23.10.2020.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the communication dated 23.10.2020 is contrary to the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Wardha on 13.11.2019 and the evaluation report dated 04.07.2020 sent by District Project Officer, General Hospital, Wardha. He points out from these documents that the performance of the petitioner, while rendering his service on year to year basis from the year 2009 till the year 2019-20, was perfect and completely satisfactory and, therefore, it is an injustice to the petitioner that the authorities, which had found the performance of the petitioner as satisfactory earlier, have now sent adverse report of non-satisfactory performance of the petitioner on duty. In these circumstances, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order dated 31.03.2020 became stigmatic and, in any case, the communication dated 23.102020 is patently stigmatic and untrue and, therefore, both these documents deserved to be quashed and set aside.

5. So far as the communication dated 23.10.2020 challenged in this petition by the petitioner is concerned, we do not think that the challenge is sustainable in law. The reason being that this communication is an internal communication of the department of the respondents and it forms a part of the internal correspondence between its officers and, therefore, it makes no impact on the public image of the petitioner in the sense that the internal correspondence being not part of public domain, would not come in the way of the petitioner in securing employment elsewhere and, therefore, no challenge can be made to the document dated 23.10.2020, which is a part of the internal communication between the two different officers.

6. as regards other communication dated 31.03.2020, we find that this communication does not terminate midway the contractual service of the petitioner. It only states that the Project Director of the Maharashtra State aids Control Society, Mumbai has taken a decision to not renew the contractual service of the petitioner any further and, therefore, the petitioner would stand relieved from his job as 'Lab Technician' with effect from 31.03.2020, the date on which the contractual service of the petitioner was even otherwise expiring. The communication dated 31.03.2020 does not give any reason for not renewing the contractual service of the petitioner and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be called as stigmatic.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination of the contractual service of the petitioner has come from the respondent no.2-Civil Surgeon, Wardha, but, he is not an authority to do so in law. according to the learned counsel, the appoint