The main legal point established in the judgment is that contractual terminations must comply with the specified conditions and that an enquiry is necessary before dispensing with an employee's services.

Arun Mishra, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as Block Resource Centre Co-ordinator Sohawal, District-Satna in Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission. He was appointed on 5-10-1995 on contract basis initially for a period of one year. The services of the petitioner were continued after expiry of one year and he continued to work till date of his removal i.e. 9-2-2000 on which date District Mission Director terminated the services of the petitioner owing to his work being not satisfactory. Petitioner submits that his annual confidential reports are good; his services were satisfactory; no enquiry was pending against him; he was never informed of dereliction of duty. Thus, order of termination dated 9-2-2000 is illegal, arbitrary and be quashed. By way of amendment, it has been incorporated that after filing of the petition a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Rewa which has been dismissed by the Commissioner on the ground of want of jurisdiction. It has been held that Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision pertaining to a matter of Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission.

2. In the return filed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, it is contended that appointment was contractual; it was to be reviewed after a period of one year. The petitioner did certain irregularities such as appointing two teachers without sanction and paying them salary for a period of six months from the budget allotted by Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission. Further that he did not distribute the written material and the books sent for circulation amongst the students. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found irregular; hence it was decided not to extend the contract of the petitioner. No meeting took place in the month of October, 1999. The period of contract which was initially for one year had already lapsed; thus, it is a case of non-extension of the term mentioned in the contractual appointment. No stigma was cast on the petitioner, hence no show cause notice was required to be given.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that termination is contrary to the General Service Conditions for the Contractual Employees of the Mission. He places reliance on condition No. 4 of the conditions relating to termination, which reads as under:-

Persons working on contract can be terminated with one month notice if found inefficient. In case of persons found indulged in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission, Mission Director shall reserve right to terminate him/her with immediate effect.

4. His further submission is that enquiry should have been conducted in case there was allegations; the petitioner was never warned about his unsatisfactory performance and unilateral decision was taken to dispense with his service.

5. Learned counsel for respondents Shri Singh submits that it is a case of non-extension of contractual appointment. The original contract stood expired in 1996. Thereafter there was general extension for one year. Thereafter no further extension was made. His service period was assessed and as irregularities were found as mentioned in the return, services of the petitioner were rightly removed in accordance with condition No. 4 relating to termination.

6. Bare perusal of the impugned order of removal which was passed on 9-2-2000 (Annexure P/2) records a categorical finding that the petitioner continued on contractual basis; his work was not found satisfactory; hence a decision was taken not to extend the period of contract; hence the contractual appointment was terminated forthwith and petitioner was ordered to be removed.

7. The petitioner was working from the year 1995 and it does not appear that he was issued any warning or any show cause notice requiring his explanation. Condition No. 4 relating to termination of an employee of Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission provides safeguard of one month's notice if the service of an employee is found inefficient. No such notice of one mont