A writ court under Article 226 was required to examine whether the petitioner’s right conferred by part III of the Constitution of India or her statutory right was violated by any action of the Government, authority or person. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court Of Sikkim before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan in the matter of Ms. Manju Chettri Vs. State of Sikkim and Ors [W.P. (C) No. 34 of 2021].
The facts of the case were associated with an application under 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was listed to admit the issuance of notice. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent. The said respondent discharged the petitioner from her contractual service. The petitioner prayed for a declaration and stated that her contract termination was illegal and violated the principles of natural justice. She also prayed for restoring her service with all benefits. The counsel, Mr. J. B. Pradhan representing the petitioner stated that there is an endorsement to the Executive Chairman of the 3rd respondent to consider her case on the special ground.
The Hon’ble Court stated that the petitioner had failed to prove that how the termination of the contract was illegal, arbitrary and violated natural justice. It’s evident that contractual service is governed by the terms and conditions of the contract. Therefore, according to clause 2 of the letter of appointment, initially, the probation was for 6 months and can be extended upon her performance. It seemed that the petitioner signed all the terms and conditions but the T&Cs were not looked at thoroughly before order issuance.
Considering all the facts and submissions, The Hon’ble Court ruled out “… From what has been placed before this court, the act of the 3rd respondent is not violative of the rights conferred by part III of the Constitution of India or any other statutory rights. It is neither arbitrary nor illegal… In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is free to make such representation to the 3rd respondent, if she so desires, to consider her case sympathetically.”
Judgment reviewed by- Bipasha Kundu