HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 801/2018 Virendra Choudhary S/o. Shri Vijay Singh, Resident Of Village And Post Kathumar, Tehshil Kathumar, District Alwar Raj. Presently Posted As Junior Technical Assistant Panchayat Samiti Sapotara Present At Panchayat Samiti Hindaun, District Karauli. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj. 2. District Collector Cum District Projector Coordinator, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Gua, District Karauli Raj. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rural Development Programme, Karauli Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma & Mr. Chetram for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr. Ashutosh Udawat, Ms. Divya Rathore and Mr. Prateek Saxena JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/02/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the respondents by which the services of the petitioner under contractual agreement have been terminated. (2 of 3) [CW-801/2018] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis on 14.12.2011 as Junior Technical Assistant and on instructions of his seniors, he had issued the work completion certificate for the period earlier to the years of his joining, for the work done by his predecessor. Counsel submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the work, which was done by his predecessor, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondents is not tenable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner joined contractual services on 14.12.2011 and he has issued completion certificate in the year 2013 while the work was pending and by such act of the petitioner the respondent has sustain loss of Rs.198636/-. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the decision was taken for terminating contractual services of the petitioner by passing the impugned order, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis on the post of Junior Technical Assistant on 14.12.2011 till 29.02.2012, but subsequently, his contract was extended on several occasions and in the meantime, certain construction work was required to be (3 of 3) [CW-801/2018] done, but without completion of the same, the petitioner issued a completion certificate in this regard, which has caused financial loss to the respondents and accordingly, a decision was taken to discontinue the contractual services of the petitioner by passing the impugned order. This Court finds no valid reason to interfere with the order impugned passed by the respondents and also finds no merit and substance in this petition. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/95