IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review cannot extend to altering the terms of a contract post-expiry, and the principles of natural justice were upheld in the termination process.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sudipta Dutta, learned standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Government of Assam, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2, 4 & 5; and Mr. C. S. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order, 01.11.2017, issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Program Coordinator (MGNREGA), Morigaon, terminating his contractual engagement. The petitioner has also presented a challenge to a speaking order, dated 05.01.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam, rejecting his prayer for reinstatement in his contractual engagement.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner who was a job card holder under MGNREGA, had applied for the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak on contractual basis. On his selection for his engagement against the said post; the petitioner came to be appointed vide order, dated 04.01.2014, issued by the Project Director, DRDA, Morigaon, on contractual basis. The said engagement was to continue with effect from the date of his joining or signing of the contractual engagement which is later upto 30.06.2014. Accordingly, the petitioner on 04.01.2014, executed an agreement with the Block Development Officer, Moirabari Development Block, Morigaon, and joined his service as Gram Rozgar Sahayak. The petitioner, thereafter, continued to discharge his duties as a Gram Rozgar Sahayak. While the petitioner was continuing to discharge his duties as a Gram Rozgar Sahayak, he came to be placed under detention on 01.11.2017, in connection with ACB Police Station Case No. 07/2017 which was registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the petitioner, herein, and other co-accused persons. On being placed under detention in connection with the said case; the petitioner was vide order, dated 01.11.2017, retrenched from his service by cancellation of his contractual engagement. The said order of retrenchment was issued by the respondent No. 3, herein.

4. It is seen that thereafter, an inquiry committee was constituted by order, dated 24.01.2018, by the respondent No. 3, to inquire into the allegations so levelled against the petitioner. The inquiry committee on conclusion of its inquiry, submitted its report on 07.07.2018, and in the conclusions arrived at therein, held that the charges levelled against the petitioner, could not be established. The petitioner not being re-engaged in his service in terms of the said Inquiry Report, dated 07.07.2018, had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)1469/2019, praying for reinstatement in his service. This Court vide order, dated 27.10.2021, on noticing the issues so arising therein, was pleased, basing on the agreement entered into by and between the parties to the proceeding; to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam, and the said authority was directed to take on board, the said representation of the petitioner and thereafter, pass a speaking order within the period so specified in the said order. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted a representation before the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, on 29.10.2021. The Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, on consideration of the representation and the contemporaneous records; proceeded vide order, dated 05.01.2022, to reject the said representation and accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for his re-engagment as Gram Rozgar Sahayak came to be rejected.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court.

6. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel