2025:CGHC:9516 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4278 of 2021 Ram Kumar Jangde S/o Late Shri Chaitram Jangade Aged About 47 Years R/o 49/1500. Kelovihar Colony District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Health And Family Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur,chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Directorate Of Health Service Government Of Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattigarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Mission Director National Health Mission, Sector- 27, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur,chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Collector District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. C.J. K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.04.01 16:23:20 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 25/02/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15.06.2021 passed by Respondent No. 5 by which the service of the petitioner on contractual basis has been discontinued and his contractual period has not been extended on the count that his performance was not satisfactory. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12.06.2006 the petitioner was initially appointed as a Data Manager on contract basis by the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Raigarh in the fixed pay of Rs. 10,000/- per month the tenure of contractual period for 1 year which was extended from time to time without any hindrance thereafter the respondent No. 4 has issued show notice dated 31.08.2020 alleging that the petitioner was not discharging his duties with seniority and when discrepancies have been found in the report submitted by him pertaining to Covid-19 Pandmic, Higher officer has shown dissatisfaction over it. 3. The petitioner submitted the reply on 09.10.2020 denying the allegations contending that actual data was not collected and report was prepared, as such there is no misrepresentation with regard to data, thereafter, Chief Health and Medical Officer again issued show cause notice on 01.10.2020 on the basis of information given to him by the Chief Health and Medical Officer on 20.09.2020. The petitioner again submitted reply and denying the contention of the notice. Another notice was issued by respondent No. 5 to the petitioner on 06.10.2020 reiterating the same stand and also held that the petitioner is responsible for disciplinary action. The petitioner has submitted the reply but the respondent without considering his reply has terminated the contractual employment of the petitioner vide Annexure P/1 dated 15.06.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no foundation with regard to framing of opinion regarding dissatisfactory performance of the petitioner. He would further submit that according to the information collected by him under Right to Information Act, he was having 87 marks in the appraisal report which clearly demonstrates that the performance of the petitioner was excellent and there is no such adverse marks in the appraisal report, thus he would submit that the inference drawn against the petitioner is without foundation which suffers from perversity and illegality. He would refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench in WA No. 322 of 2019 in case of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra and would submit that without any inquiry discontinuation of service of the petitioner contractual employee is illegal and would pray for quashing of the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 would submit that assessment of performance of the petitioner was subjective satisfaction of Chief Health and Medical Officer wherein negligence was found on the part of the petitioner, therefore, his contractual period has been discontinued on the basis of appraisal of material placed before him. Thus there is sufficient material against the petitioner for termination of his contractual employment and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the submission made by counsel for respondent No. 3 and would submit that impugned order was passed in accordance with the rules and material which was placed before the Collector, he acted upon it and order for discontinuation of contractual period of petitioner was passed which is legal and justified and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. This Court put a specific question to respondent No. 3 and State when the appraisal report shows satisfactory performance of the petitioner and 87 marks have been given to the petitioner as to what was the material available to them to record dissatisfactory performance. 9. From the record made available to the Court it is found that no material is placed on record by the Respondent No. 3 and the State to demonstrate that the petitioner’s performance was unsatisfactory. Considering the well settled legal position of law that this Court cannot interfere in the decision but can certainly interfere in the decision making process adopted by the respondent. The performance of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory but what was the reason or material to record such reason has been placed on record which clearly indicates that decision making process suffers from non-consideration of material or consideration of the material which was not relevant for decision making process, therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 15.06.2021 deserves to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 10.It is informed by the counsel for the respondent that post is still lying vacant, therefore, respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on contract basis on the post of Data Manager afresh without being influenced by earlier cancellation of contractual appointment order as this Court has already quashed the impugned order dated 15.06.2021. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to get any back wages or monetary benefit for the intervening period of his out of contractual appointment. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh