JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present review petition is filed seeking review of order dated 22.12.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 7981/2017, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.

3. The background fact of institutions the writ petition was that the petitioner was appointed as Computer Assistant on contractual basis by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Cachar, Silchar vide engagement order dated 18.02.2012 pursuant to selection process. The appointment order was on contractual basis for a period of 1 (one) year. It is also case of the petitioner that his term of service was extended from time to time. While he was discharging his duties, contractual an engagement was terminated by order dated 24.01.2018, issued by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Cachar, Silchar. Such order was challenged in the writ petition.

4. The said writ petition was pending before this Court since the year 2018 and the matter was taken up for hearing in the year 2021. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court, upholding the termination order basically on the ground that the engagement of the petitioner was for a very temporary period and during pendency of the writ petition, the period of engagement of the petitioner was already expired and therefore, this Court came to a conclusion that this Court cannot direct the parties to enter into a fresh contract, when the matter is governed by contractual liabilities. While coming to such conclusion, this Court relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in the case of Ajoy Kumar Haloi –Vs- State of Assam reported in MANU/GH/0309/2014.

5. In the case of Ajoy Kumar Haloi (supra), learned Bench while held that before determining a question as to whether termination of contractual appointment of the petitioners in that case was legal or not, the court first need to decide another issue whether the writ petition is over taken by time and has, ipso facto, become infructuous. The learned Bench came to a finding that the Court cannot extend the period of engagement of the contractual employee, beyond the period of contract.

6. Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that that at the time of hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, he could not bring out two orders of this Court deciding similar writ petition involving termination of similar employees by similar order passed in WP(C) No. 1964/2020 (Sanjoy Kairi –Vs-State of Assam and Ors) dated 29.01.2021 and WP(C) No. 8618/2018 (Surojit Roy –Vs-State of Assam and Ors), dated 09.12.2020.

7. Mr. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that similarly situated person, terminated by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Cachar, were set aside by this Court on the ground that the orders were stigmatic and therefore opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the petitioners and thus a direction was issued to reinstate the petitioners in those cases.

8. Mr. Quadir, learned counsel submits that as the said orders were not brought to notice of this Court and in absence of such orders, the Court had passed the order and therefore, there is error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, he prays that the order dated 22.12.2021 be reviewed and matter be heard afresh.

9. The record reveals that the petitioner was appointed initially for a period of 5 (five) months and it was extended from time to time and the last contract was executed on 2nd of April, 2017 and the contract discloses that the period of contract shall stand automatically terminated at the expiry of the contract period unless the terminated earlier. The impugned order of termination also reflects that some serious anomalies were noted for the financial year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 in respect of materials component. However, in the impugned order of termination, there is no alle