Judgment:
Oral Judgment:
1. Heard Mr.Oza, learned advocate for petitioner.
2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed that:
â4(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ or direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order ANNEXURE-A VIDE No. GMRDS/VHT/MS/12/3885 dated 12.10.2012 and be directed the extension of the service agreement ANNEXURE-B for two years in the interest of justice.
(b) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to give direction to the Respondents that none of the person to be employed in the place of the present petitioner will the final hearing and disposal of this petition in the interest of justice.â
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision dated 12.10.2012 whereby the petitioner came to be informed that the period of his contractual employment would come to an end w.e.f. 13.10.2012 and the authority does not find it appropriate to extend said contractual appointment and therefore his engagement with the respondent would come to an end and stand concluded upon expiry of the period of contract i.e. w.e.f. 13.10.2012.
4. The petitioner has raised grievance against the said communication â order and has preferred present petition contending that the contract of the employment entered into between him and respondent society contained a clause that the period of contract is extendable and that therefore the respondents should grant such extension.
5. With such grievance and on such contention petitioner has preferred present petition.
6. In backdrop of the fact that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis for fixed period vide order dated 14.10.2011.
7. The agreed, fixed and stipulated period of contract, as per the terms of the contract, was one year which could be extended by one year at a time but for maximum two more years. The contract was extendable up to maximum 3 years.
8. The fixed tenure of the contract was one year from 14.10.2011. Accordingly, the contract was expired on completion of one year on 13.10.2012. Therefore, vide communication dated 12.10.2012, the respondent society informed the petitioner that upon completion of the contractual period on 13.10.2012 the contract will not be extended. The petitioner is aggrieved by such decision and intimation and action of not extending the contract.
9. Mr. Oza, learned advocate has appeared for petitioner and reiterated the factual aspects. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that upon receiving such intimation the petitioner had issued a notice, through his advocate, asking the respondent society to continue him and also to extend the period of contract in view of the clause in the contract which provided for extension of period of contract. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that despite such request, the respondent society has not accepted the petitioners request and his engagement with the respondent society is treated as concluded w.e.f. 13.10.2012. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that such action of the respondent society is arbitrary and malafide. Learned counsel for petitioner also contended that petitioner had taken certain action against some persons who were removing minerals with help of forged documents and that is why petitioners engagement has not been continued.
10. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and also perused the documents on record.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner came to be engaged as Supervisor on contractual basis for fixed tenure mentioned in the contract. The term of his engagement was of one year as per the terms of the contract. The terms of the said contract also contained a condition that period of contract may be extended, however, another condition in the same contract also prescribed that the contract can be terminated at any time with two months notice. Such provision in the contract clarifies that extension/renewal of the contract was not, and is not, obligatory and mandatory for the employer and that therefore also such requirement cannot be read into the contract and/or cannot be foisted on one of the parties to the contract.
12. While entering into the contract, the petitioner had the discretion and option to not enter into and to not execute the contract. However, the petitioner consciously accepted all terms and conditions of the contract including the condition regarding fixed tenure and entered into/executed the contract and also reaped fruits viz. employment as per the terms of the contract.
12.1. After having accepted the said contract as well as all terms and conditions forming part of the contract and after having enjoyed the fruits of the contract of employment (under which he was engaged), now, the petitioner cannot disown the other conditions and cannot claim that the decision to not renew/extend the contract for further period is malafide or arbitrary.
13. Though the contract of employment contained a clause that the period of contract would be extendable, however that was purely on discretion of the employer and subject to/depending on the requirement of the respondent and petitioners performance.
14. If the respondent society finds that the service of petitioner is not required and there is no need or justification to extend the fixed period of contract of employment, then such discretion is available to the respondent society under the contract which the petitioner has consciously accepted and also bound himself by such terms of contract.
15. If the respondent society considers it appropriate, for its own administrative reason, to not extend the period of the contract and consequently does not extend/renew the contract, then the Court cannot interfere with such decision of the employer, more so when such discretion and right is available to the employer under the contract itself and if there is no malafides in the background of or as a foundation of such decision and action of employer (who is State or authority under Article 12 of the Constitution).
16. The learned counsel for petitioner has tried to make allegation on ground of malafide. However, any material to substantiate said allegation except bald allegations has not been placed on record.
17. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had made allegation against any particular officer of the respondent society and such officer has, upon being aggrieved by his action, taken the impugned decision. Any allegation against the authority who has passed the impugned order or any specific allegation against his (i.e. the petitioners) superior officer have not been made by the petitioner. Honble Apex Court has observed that it is easy to make allegations of malafides but difficult to prove.
17.1. In present case the petitioner has made merely bald allegation without any supporting material.
17.2. It appears that the allegation is made only with a view to providing some base and a platform for maintaining the petition but the petitioner has not placed any cogent material on record to support and substantiate such allegation. Even otherwise the said allegations can be independently inquired into and examined in separate and appropriate proceedings.
18. The period of the contract was fixed under the contract (and the said condition was accepted by the petitioner) and the contract has been allowed to live its life i.e. to continue until its last date and thereafter it has not been renewed. After the last date, if the period is not extended/renewed, it cannot be said that contract has been prematurely terminated.
19. It is trite that when one of the parties to the contract is not interested in renewing/extending the contract and is not willing and ready to renew/extend it, then Court cannot compel such unwilling party to extend/renew the contract against its free will.
20. In a contract both parties need to be ad-idem.
21. Thus, in present case when the respondent is not willing to renew/extend the contract, Court cannot compel the respondent to extend/renew the contract.
22. Moreover, subject of renewal/extension of contract or dispute related to renewal/extension of contract falls in realm of contract and will be governed by the relevant terms of the contract, hence, the said subject cannot be pulled into prerogative territory of judicial review and such issues cannot be considered and decided in writ proceedings and prerogative writ of mandamus cannot be issued for directing an unwilling party to extend/renew a contract. Termination of employment/service with Government (or its limb/agency) â though contractual â may, in a given case, stand on different footing and arbitrary termination of service may be amenable to process of judicial review in given set of circumstances and facts. However, in present case the pure and simple issue is about renewal of contract after expiry of its term as per mutually agreed condition of the contract.
23. Besides this, the contract between the petitioner and the respondent is a contract in nature of contract of personal service.
23.1. Such contracts, in view of provisions under Specific Relief Act, 1963, more particularly Section 14 of the said Act, cannot be specifically enforced.
23.2. For the aggrieved party in such cases the remedy would be ordinary civil remedy under law of Contract and writ jurisdiction would not be available for such dispute/s.
24. On overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the terms and condition of the contract under which the petitioner was engaged and in light of the foregoing discussion and reasons the petition does not deserve to be entertained and is accordingly disposed of as unsustainable.
25. It is, however, clarified that present order will not stand in way of the petitioner if the petitioner wants to avail appropriate alternative remedy against his so-called termination.
With the aforesaid clarification, petition is disposed of.