Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review and must adhere to the principles of natural justice.

SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J.

1. The petitioner before this Court was appointed on the post of District Manager (Public Services) on contract basis, he is aggrieved by the order dated 20.1.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3/Collector whereby his services have been terminated and in his place respondent No. 4/Smt. Sharda Saraf who was earlier, posted in place of the petitioner has been reinstated. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a graduate in Computer Application (BCA) and has also done Masters in Business Administration (MBA) and was until now working as the District Manager (Public Services) Damon on contract basis under Public Service Management Department.

2. The case of the petitioner is that earlier the respondent No. 4/Smt. Sharda Saraf was appointed on the aforesaid post of District Manager but her services were terminated vide order dated 30.7.2014 (Annexure P/14) and on the said vacant post, the petitioner was appointed on 21.5.2015 after following due selection process wherein an advertisement was issued in the month of March, 2015 in the leading newspapers and the official website of respondents No. 1 to 3. And, since the petitioner fulfilled the educational qualification required for the aforesaid post, he also submitted his application and subsequently got selected having topped the merit list, and on the basis of the academic records and the interview amongst first 10 candidates.

3. The petitioner's submission is that initially the contract appointment was for one year only, which was extendable by four terms i.e. maximum period of five years with the stipulation that even after 5 years as per the performance of the appointee the term shall be extended. After the petitioner's appointment, an agreement Annexure - P/11 dated 03.06.2015 was also executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 3.

The petitioner's further submission is that prior to his appointment as District Manager he was already serving in the same department on the post of Office Assistant (Public Services) Damoh through direct appointment dated 27.8.2011. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 4 was appointed on the aforesaid post vide order dated 27.8.2011 and as already stated above initially the contract period was for one year and lastly it was extended by order dated 2.9.2013 issued by the respondent No. 3 and was to last till 31.8.2014 but during this period many complaints were made against the respondent No. 4 and she was also served with many show cause notices by the respondent No. 3 to mend her work and behaviour but as contended by the petitioner instead of mending her work, she started making allegations against her superiors and even threatened to commit suicide. On the show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 3, a reply was also filed by the respondent No. 4 and a detailed order was passed by the respondent No. 3 terminating the services of the respondent No. 4 on 30.7.2014 vide Annexure P/14. Due to her threats to commit suicide, a complaint was also lodged on 31.7.2014 and was also forwarded by the predecessor of respondent No. 3 to the Local Police Heads seeking necessary action against the respondent No. 4. Copies of complaint and the report lodged with the police authority are also placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure P/15.

4. After respondent No. 4's termination, she preferred an application on 2.8.2014 before the respondent No. 3 and sought review/recall of termination order dated 30.7.2014. The aforesaid application was rejected vide order Annexure P/17 dated 14.8.2014 by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that there is no provision in the recruitment Rules to review or recall an order of termination.. The aforesaid order has not been challenged by the respondent No. 4 in any Court and, as submitted by the petitioner, the same has attained finality and is binding on the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 also preferred a Writ Petition No. 12125/2014 before this Court chal