- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Shri P. C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY means of this petition under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner urges this Court to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of man damus directing the respondents not to ter minate the services of the petitioner and not to interfere in his work. A non-statutory and private hospital known as S. D. Medical Institute and Re search Centre, Muzaffarnagar, employed the petitioner as Consultant on a con solidated salary of Rs. 5000 per month with certain other benefits. The letter of appoint ment, a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the petition, also stipulated that the relation ship between the petitioner and the instit ution was that of a contractual service which would be rescinded by either party by giving one month's notice or pay in lieu there of. In exercise of right to rescind the relationship of contractual service on one month's notice or pay in lieu there of, the institute has served notice dated 16th Oc tober, 1996 to the petitioner rescinding the contractual service of the petitioner and this gave rise to the controversy sought to be agitated in this petition.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the institute which employed the petitioner is purely private and non-statutory body. IT is also not disputed that the contract between the petitioner and the institute is of the nature of contract of personal service. It cannot be gainsaid that the con tract of personal service cannot be enforced. No employee can be thrust upon an unwill ing employer, except in accordance with the provisions of law. No law has been shown to the Court obliging the enforcement of the contract of personal service. Put at its best, instant case may be a case of breach of whol ly non-statutory contract for which remedy may be elsewhere, certainly not a writ peti tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, in the opinion of the Court, is wholly misconceived entitling the petitioner for no relief.;