The court confirmed that contractual employment not involving State functionaries does not fall within the purview of Article 12, thus impacting the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. BN Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by K. Deb, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 7.

2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

1 Issue Rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why all records relating to the case of the petitioner should not transmitted to this Hon'ble Court.

2 As to why Writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued quashing the office order dated 02.11.2022 issued via email dated 02.11.2022 by the respondent No.7, e-Governance Services Ltd, whereunder the petitioner's contract as a consultant in the capacity of District Manager was terminated as per Clause 6 of the Contract Letter.

3 As to why writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of the District Manager, West Tripura forthwith with parity in pay with similarly situated District Managers of other Districts.

4 In the interim be pleased to stay effect and operation of the office order dated 02.11.2022 issued via email dated 02.11.2022 by the respondent No.7 till disposal of the writ petition.

5 As to why such other order/orders should not be passed so as to give full relief to the petitioner and upon cases shown to make the Rule absolute.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged to the post of District Manager under CSC 2.0 Scheme, under Gomati District by Memorandum dated 30.04.2016 on contractual basis. The petitioner continued working in the capacity of District Manager and again on 04.05.2022 his contractual engagement was renewed w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and his monthly remuneration was revised to Rs.36,746/- only per month from 01.04.2022. All the other terms and conditions of his contractual agreement as mentioned in his original contract letter remained unchanged.

4. On 02.11.2022 the petitioner received a termination letter terminating his service with immediate effect and 15 days' fees in lieu of the Notice period and further asking him to hand over all documents and other properties belonging to the Company to his reporting Manager/Supervisor within 03.11.2022.

5. Being aggrieved by the termination letter vide email dated 02.11.2022, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

6. Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this court that the termination of the petitioner is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside as the same has not been as per the terms of the contract dated 30.04.2016. Clause 6 which has been cited as the empowering clause for termination of contract does not contain any condition for termination. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before terminating him from his services. He further contended that the petitioner may be reinstated to the services.

7. Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing for the respondent No.1 contended before this court that respondent No.1 is a formal party and the main respondents dealing with the subject matter are respondents no.2 to 7. He further submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissing the same.

8. Mr. B.N Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 to 7 by way of placing the counter affidavit and other necessary documents has contended before thi