Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. The question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the termination of the contractual appointment of the petitioner can be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? To answer the question, a brief narration of the facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner, may be in order. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Block Programme Manager under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) on 2.6.2007 by the respondent No. 3 on contractual basis for a period of six months from the date of joining the post. He was initially placed at the disposal of the Medical Officer-in-Charge, Block Primary Health Centre, North Guwahati. A contract was accordingly executed by him with the respondents. After the expiry of the contract period, no order was issued for extension of the contractual period till the time this writ petition was filed by the petitioner. Nevertheless, he continued to discharge his duties and responsibilities.

2. It would appear that the respondent No. 2 by the order dated 24.8.2009 transferred the petitioner, among others, to Boko Block Primary Health Centre, Kamrup District and directed him to join his new place of posting within 15 days with the further stipulation that the contract signed by the petitioner would remain in force. The respondent No. 3 thereafter issued the order dated 18.9.2009 directing the petitioner to hand over the charge and complete all the formalities for joining his new place of posting within 3 days from the date of issue of the order. The petitioner immediately complied with the order and joined the post.

3. However, much to his surprise, the respondent No. 2, without giving him an opportunity of hearing, issued the order dated 25.1.2011 terminating his services purportedly in accordance with Clause 8 and 9 of the contract to be effective after 30 days from the date issue of the order. The function of the petitioner is to prepare the agenda notes, meeting proceedings, taking follow-up actions on the decision taken in the meeting and keeping the District informed apart from monitoring each and every institutions, conducting delivery to know whether records are kept in the delivery register or not as well as delivery records on the ANM's registers, to assist and guide ASHA in each village, assist the Medical Officer-in-Charge, Block Primary Health Centre in preparation of Village Health Plan and Block Health Action Plan, etc.

4. As usual, the monthly meeting of the Boko Primary Block Health Centre of the NRHM, Assam was held on 4.1.2011 to discuss the implementation of the Programmes which was attended by about 150 members belonging to and engaged at Boko Block Primary Health Centre (BPHC) i.e. the Medical Officers, ANM's and ASHA facilitators and other Medical Staff including the petitioner. Various resolutions were adopted in that meeting apart from reviewing the programme execution without problem. However, on the verbal complaints of Nurses and ASHA facilitators as to the taking of money by Medical Officers in case of deliveries, the petitioner did raise the issue so as to prevent future recurrence and to extend maximum benefits to the poor of the Block. This apparently provoked the Doctors of Boko Block Primary Health Centre, Community Health Centre and First Referral Unit, Kamrup District to file complaints against the petitioner which resulted in the impugned termination order. The petitioner during his tenure as Block Programme Manager had never misbehaved either with the Doctors or the Nurses of the Boko Block Primary Health Centre. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned termination is stigmatic and punitive in nature and was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended by the petitioner that the report of the respondent No. 3 dated 21.9.2011 (2010) upon which the impugned order was issued was never made available to him. He, therefore, files this