1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1749 of 2018 ------ Raushan Kumar, son of Brij Kishore Prasad, resident of Near Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Dharampur Road, Latehar, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District Latehar, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar. 3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Latehar, having its office at Sadar Hospital Complex, Latehar, District Latehar. 4. State Malaria Officer-cum-Secretary, State Malaria Control Committee, Jharkhand, having its office at Namkum, District Ranchi. 5. Project Director, National Rural Health Mission, Jharkhand, having its office at Namkum, Ranchi. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit, AC to AAG-I ------ 15/ 20.03.2025 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter contained in memo no.651 dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of the Respondent No.3, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Latehar, whereby and whereunder the contract of the petitioner dated 14.4.2013 has been terminated unilaterally. b) For issuance of a further appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Data Entry Operator and allow him to continue on the said post without there being any encumbrances from any corner; 2 c) For issuance of a further appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith make payment of salary / remuneration of the petitioner pending since 23.7.2013 till today which has not bee paid to the petitioner without there being any valid and cogent reasoning for the same and/or considering the fact that the petitioner has been stopped from rendering from service on the post of Data Entry Operator abruptly without issuing any show cause notice and / or without initiating any proceeding whatsoever;” 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent – State. 3. The facts are admitted in this case. 4. The petitioner is contractual employee working as Data Entry Operator in the District of Latehar, Jharkhand. He has been removed from the said post. 5. After hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that the ground of removal is absolutely bad and does not stand to any logic. 6. While the petitioner was working as a Data Entry Operator, an Advertisement was floated for appointment of Block Data Manager, on contractual basis. The petitioner applied against the said Advertisement and was selected on contractual basis to work as a Block Data Manager. The petitioner filed his requisite documents also. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as the Block Data Manager and was given posting at Mahuatanr, Latehar. The petitioner did not want to join at Mahuatanr, thus he did not join. 7. The respondents on the ground that the petitioner has 3 already been selected and given a place of joining as Block Data Manager, dismissed him from the post of Data Entry Operator. 8. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that since the petitioner was already selected as Block Data Manager and was given a place of posting at Mahuatanr, that is the reason the petitioner has been dismissed / removed from the post of Data Entry Operator, at Latehar. He further submits that now in place of the petitioner, another person has already been appointed. 9. The aforesaid reason for dismissing / removing the petitioner and appointing another person in place of the petitioner is absolutely absurd. 10. The petitioner did not join as a Block Data Manager and refused such offer before joining. Since the petitioner has refused the offer of appointment before joining, no fault can be found. Further, unless the petitioner joins the new post, it cannot be said that his old post where he was working i.e. the Data Entry Operator in Latehar, will fall vacant to appoint any other person against the said post. The entire action of the respondents gives a feeling that since the petitioner has not joined and has not accepted the appointment to the post of Block Data Manager, at Mahuatanr, Latehar, the respondents with a vindictive attitude has removed him from the post of Data Entry Operator at Latehar. This action of the respondents smacks malafide. This Court holds that termination of the contract is absolutely bad and with malafide intention, which is not expected from the officials of the State. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the 4 case, the impugned Memo No.651 (DHS) dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to immediately reinstate the petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator at Latehar, with a fresh contract, within a week. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.30,000/- to be paid by the respondent, who is the author of the impugned order. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant.Cp-2