- (1.) HEARD Ms.Manju Chouhan in person. For the order proposed to be passed, we do not consider it necessary to issue formal notice.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, necessary for the instant adjudication, are that the appellant was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat, Surdiya on contract basis under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS). An agreement was executed between her and the concerned State authority embodying stipulations pertaining to the said appointment. The period of contract as specified therein was from 1.5.2008 to 30.4.2009 and was extendable, by mutual consent, by not more than one year at a time, but in any case not above five years. Apart from the stipulation that on a proven misconduct of the appointee, his/her services could be terminated, the contract was terminable also with a notice of one month on either side or by depositing/paying one month's package/contract amount in lieu of such notice. The appointee, as per the agreement, was to carry out the assignment in accordance with the highest standard of professional and ethical competence and integrity having due regard to the nature and purpose thereof and conduct himself/herself in a manner consistent with the covenants contained in the agreement, failing which he/she was to be liable for action. The initial period of contract of the appellant thereafter, was extended by order dated 26.2.2010 upto 28.2.2011. It was thereafter, that by communication dated 24.11.2010, her services were terminated with effect from that date by paying her one month's salary in advance by a cheque as referred to therein. As this communication would disclose, the decision to terminate her services was in compliance of a letter dated 11.10.2010 of the Additional District Programme Coordinator and Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer. This letter dated 11.10.2010 discloses that her conduct as well as services, on due enquiry, had been found to be unsatisfactory, and that, therefore, she was found to be unfit to be retained. The letter dated 24.11.2010, however in addition, referred to the stipulations in the agreement in endorsement of the action taken. Being aggrieved, the appellant sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for redress. By judgment and order dated 6.12.2010, the learned Single Judge, having regard to the particular covenant, providing for the termination of the contract with one month's notice on either side or by depositing/paying one month's package/contract amount and also taking note of the fact that the appellant's was a contract appointment limited by time, declined to interfere with the impugned decision. The appellant thereafter, filed an application for review of this determination by brining on record the letter dated 11.10.2010 contending that the termination of her services had been punitive as well as stigmatic and that the same was unsustainable in law, in absence of any prior notice or opportunity of hearing to her to refute the imputations leading thereto. The review having been rejected, she is in appeal. In addition to her submissions in Court, the appellant has also laid before us the written arguments to emphasize, in particular, the impermissibility of the termination of her services, the same being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
(3.) THAT the appointment of the appellant had been on contract basis and limited by time, is a matter of record. Further, that it was subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement as referred to hereinabove specifying the eventualities in which and the modes whereby, her appointment could be terminated is also not in dispute. That by the date of termination of her services, initial term of appointment had been extended beyond 30.4.2009, is also borne ought by the records. Though, the petitioner has alleged that the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Jawaja and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Surdiya are husband and wife, and because of their animosity, they had prevailed upon the respondents No.3 and 4 to terminate her services without conducting an enquiry or affording opportunity of hearing to her, the letter dated 11.10.2010 hints at some enquiry into the deficiencies in conduct and services for which she was not construed to be suitable to be retained. Apart from the fact that under the agreement, the appellant was required to maintain the highest standard of professional and ethical competence and integrity, her retention logically was contingent on her satisfactory performance. The manner of termination of her services also cannot be said to be in total departure from the methodologies contemplated in the agreement. Noticeably, though the letter dated 24.11.2010 whereby the appellant's services were terminated did refer to the communication dated 11.10.2010, she, at the first instance, did not raise the plea of unfairness in action. It was after the dismissal of her writ petition, that she belatedly had urged this contention with the imputation that she had not been afforded any opportunity of hearing.;