Judgment:
ORDER
S.V. Maruthi, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for a declaration that the order of the 3rd respondent passed in DOD/Proj.482/95 dated 10-5-1995 terminating the contract dated 24-11-1994 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
2. The petitioner is a Doctorate in Physical Oceanagraphy. The respondent organisation i.e., the National Remote Sensing Agency appointed the petitioner for a period of three years under D.O.D. Project i.e., Department of Ocean Development. After the expiry of the period of three years, by proceedings dated 22-11-1993 he was appointed on contract basis for one more year, and on 20-11-1994, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Therefore, he filed a Writ Petition No. 22497of 1994 and the same was admitted and is pending. Thereafter, the respondents again appointed the petitioner on a contract basis by its proceedings dated 20-11-1994. The subject matter of the contract was 'Processing NDAA/AVHRR (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)/(Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometre for the Retrieval of SST and their utilisation in various oceanagraphic applications and also any other job assigned by the Project Manager/Project Co-ordinator from time to time and the duration of the contract was one year and the total contract amount payable was Rs. 46,800/-.' The terms of payment are monthly on certification by the Project Manager. However, on 5-5-1995 i.e., before the expiry of the period of one year mentioned under the contract dated 20-11-1994 a memorandum was issued proposing to terminate the contract on the grounds of misconduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 8-5-1995. On a consideration of the explanation/offered by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 10-5-1995 is passed, terminating the contract under which he was appointed to execute the project entrusted to him. Aggrieved by the termination, he filed the present writ petition.
3. The party appeared in person. The main argument of the party-in-person is that in order to avoid the regularisation of his services, the respondents have adopted the method of terminating the contract though his performance was beyond doubt and excellent. Secondly the charges levelled against him are very vague and that the conclusion that he was not executing the work entrusted to him satisfactorily is not correct. He also submitted that in respect of the project viz., the Retrieval of Sea Surface Temparature from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometre entrusted to him after collecting the data along with others, he prepared a paper on his own and sent it to the respondents for approval for sending it for publication. Since he has not received any reply from the respondent-organisation, he sent the paper for publication in International Journal. Therefore, there is no violation of any conduct rules and the respondents cannot terminate his services. His further contention is that the material which was sent for publication is not a secret one. It is a matter available in the open market. Therefore, the question of violation of any rules does not arise.
4. This writ petition came up before a single Judge who dismissed the same on the ground that the matter relates to a contract and this court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is a civil suit, against which, he filed a Writ Appeal No. 601 of 1995 which was allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside and remanded the matter for consideration afresh. Hence, the writ petition is posted before me for fresh consideration.
5. The Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the period of contract expired on 19-11-1995.
Therefore, no direction could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a contract which has already expired. He also submitted that the post is a tenure post. After the expiry of the tenure, the petitioner cannot seek any relief and this Court cannot grant any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He also pointed out that issues involved are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in this writ petition.
6. The impugned order dated 10-5-1995 reads as follows:
'The explanation submitted by Dr. M. V. Ravi Prasad vide his letter dated 08-05-1995 has been carefully examined and found not at all convincing.
He has clearly admitted for having forwarded the Manuscript of the Scientific document for publication to the Editor, International Journal of Remote Sensing without approval of his Controlling Officers. His statement that he has sent the same in his personal capacity is not tenable as the matter in the said document is entirely based on the work done in NRSA.
He has no explanation for not executing the jobs specifically entrusted to him.
The undersigned, therefore, has come to the conclusion that retaining job contract of Dr. M.V. Ravi Prasad for the DOD Project will not serve the interest of the project any more. Under the circumstances it is hereby ordered that contract awarded to him vide this office letter No.DOD/94, dated 20-11-1994 shall stand terminated forthwith.
Dr. M.V. Ravi Prasad must handover all official papers/documents to the undersigned immediately'.
From a reading of the impugned order, the reason for terminating the contract is that the petitioner forwarded the Manuscript of the Scientific document for publication to the Editor, International Journal of Remote Sensing Agency without approval of his controlling officers and that his submission that he has sent the same in his personal capacity was not accepted as the matter in the said document is based on the work done and data collected in National Remote Sensing Agency. It is also stated that the retaining job contract of Dr. M.V.R. Prasad for DOD Project will not serve the interest of the work any more. Therefore, his services were terminated.
7. The petitioner has stated during the course of arguments that the project that was entrusted to him is the Retrieval of Sea Surface temparature from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometre and he prepared a paper-document on the project entrusted to him on his own after collecting the data while executing the project. In other words, the document or the paper that he has prepared relates to the Project that was entrusted to him. He also stated that he has sent the paper to his controlling authority for the purpose of approval in order to send it to the International Journal of Remote Sensing and since he had not received the approval, he sent it. Admittedly, he was appointed on contract for the purpose of executing a particular Project, entrusted to him, it is unbecoming of an employee to send the paper relating to the Project entrusted to him in advance to the International Journal of Remote Sensing. It is not disputed when a person accepts a Project that too in an organisation like the respondents, he executes a note of secrecy and admittedly even before completing the project, on the basis of data collected while excuting this project he has sent the paper relating to that Project for publication in an International Journal. Therefore, there is violation of the office of oath. In this context a reference to Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules is relevant, and it says no Government servant shall, except in accordance with any general or special order of the Government or in the performance in good faith of the duties assigned to him, communicate, directly or indirectly, any official document or any part thereof or information to any Government servant or any other person to whom he is not authorised to communicate such document of information. Therefore, even if the petitioner has prepared a document on his own on the basis of the data collected for the purpose of executing a project entrusted to him, he without obtaining approval from the Controlling Authority, should not have sent for publication in the International Journal. Therefore, the petitioner has violated the Conduct Rules.
8. Be that as it may, the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis for one year on 20-11-1994. The period of contract has expired on 20-11-1995. The period of contract has already expired. Therefore, this Court in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot set aside the impugned order. The Supreme Court in Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Badri Nathdixit, : [1991]2SCR468 held as follows:
'Courts do not ordinarily enforce performance of contracts of a personal character, such as a contract of employment. The remedy is to sue for damages. The grant of specific performance is purely discretionary and must be refused when not warranted by the ends of justice. Such relief can be granted only on sound legal principles. In the absence of any statutory requirement, Courts do not ordinarily force an employer to recruit or retain in service an employee not required by the employer'.
Similar is the view in Food Corporation of India v. Jagannath Dutta, AIR 1993 SC 149 and Brig. S. Ramachandran v. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd., 1995 (3) (Supp.) SCC 674.
9. Further, the Petitioner's appointment was for a period of one year from 20-11-1994 which is tenure post. Therefore, no relief can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As regards the subject matter of the document which was published in the International Journal, this Court cannot go into the merits of its confidentiality or otherwise of the same as it is a disputed question of fact.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.