Contractual termination upheld; judicial review permitted even with alternative remedies, but no malice found in termination process.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. GR Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the Health Department, Mr. BD Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Mr. S. Sancheti, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

2. The petitioner before this Court is a Medical Doctor by profession. She is a qualified Radiologist and had also undergone fellowship in Oncoimaging and Interventions from the Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata.

3. The respondent no. 3, namely, Assam Cancer Care Foundation is a joint partnership of the Government of the Assam and Tata Trust which was set up in the month of December, 2017 in a first of its kind venture to provide Cancer Care in a Three Level Cancer Grid in the State. The respondent No. 4 is the Tata Trust which is a philanthropic Organization. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are the Health Department of the Government of Assam.

4. Pursuant to the joint venture partnership of respondents no. 3 and 4 along with the Government of Assam, in order to provide the specific consultancy and treatment in the Health Care Sector, more particularly, in Cancer Treatment, the respondent No. 3 appointed several specialist medical professionals. The petitioner was one such medical professional who was appointed as a Consultant, Radiologist, Dibrugarh Cancer Centre. Pursuant to her engagement, a contract agreement dated 04.05.2022 was executed by and between the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was appointed on contract for a period of one year commencing from 01.08.2022 till 22.07.2023 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The professional fee payable to the petitioner during the period is also specified. The contract agreement inter-alia contained a termination Clause which provided for termination of the contract by giving 30 (thirty) days notice or by paying one month’s fee in lieu of the notice.

5. The case projected before this Court by the petitioner is that pursuant to her engagement she continued to render her services in terms of the contract agreement dated 04.05.2022. At the end of the contract period, her tenure was extended with effect from 01.08.2023 to 31.07.2024. Towards the end of the extended tenure, an online meeting on 26.07.2024 was held between the respondent No. 3 in which the petitioner was given verbal assurance of her contract renewal along with an increment of 6%. During the meeting, it is contented on behalf of the petitioner that she informed the respondent authorities for the first time on 26.07.2024 that she was pregnant. After completion of her tenure although the petitioner received her salary/pay for the month of August, 2024, the contract extension letter along with 6% increment as promised to the petitioner during the online meeting dated 26.07.2024 was not issued. Subsequently, on 09.09.2024, the respondent No. 3 issued a letter, whereby the petitioner was informed that the management had decided to exit the engagement contract and not renew the same because she had demanded a share of the profits. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the termination of her contract was issued without giving her any opportunity of