2026:JHHC:2367 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 120 of 2024 ----- Kirtan Rajwar, aged about 30 years, Son of Ashu Rajwar, Resident of Village-Tupra, P.O. & P.S.-Pindrajora, District-Bokaro. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary of Rural Development Department Panchayati Raj, Nepal House, P.O. P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi. 2. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Collector, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro, District-Bokaro. 4. The, Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, District-Bokaro. 5. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro, District-Bokaro. 6. The Block Development Officer, Petarwar, P.O. & P.S.-Peterwar, Bokaro. …Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to SC-VII …...... 08/ 29.01.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- a) For set aside the Memo No.211 order 29.03.2023 (Annexure- 4) whereby the Respondent No.3 has refused to extend the contractual employment the petitioner on the post of Block Co-ordinator. b) For a direction to the respondents to take him back in employment on contractual basis by renewing the contract on the post of Block Co-ordinator. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Block Coordinator on contractual basis on November 2017 and posted at Peterwar Block. His contract was initially for one year and was renewed regularly from 2017 onwards. The last renewal was from 27.11.2021 to 27.11.2022. After that, his services were not renewed as a punishment, for some alleged 2026:JHHC:2367 2 misconduct. The petitioner also wrote a representation to the concerned authority on 28.04.2023, but no action was taken. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have not renewed the contract of the petitioner based on false allegations. He further submits that the non-renewal of petitioner’s contract was vindictive and unfair. He also submits that no inquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain or defend himself, even though the provision of appointment rules requires fair procedure before taking disciplinary action. 4. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Block Coordinator on a one-year contract, subject to the condition that his work must be satisfactory, as clearly mentioned in his appointment letter dated 27.11.2017. He submits that the petitioner’s work was not found to be satisfactory, thus, after considering the government circular and the report, the authority decided not to renew the petitioner’s contract. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the appointment letter clearly stipulates that the continuation or renewal of the contract was subject to the petitioner’s satisfactory performance. A contractual employee does not have any vested or indefeasible right to seek renewal of the contract after expiry of its term. Non-renewal of a contract, after its expiry, does not amount to termination or punitive action, particularly when the terms of appointment expressly reserve discretion with the employer regarding renewal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo” reported in (2014) 1 SCC 161 in paragraph 49 has held as under- 49. From the factual depiction it is seen that though the policy and the Scheme provide that the age of the candidate shall not exceed 55 years as on 1-9-2007, yet the tenure is extendable thereafter depending upon the performance. We have referred to the same only for the purpose that though 2026:JHHC:2367 3 there is a maximum age-limit at the time of submission of an application, yet the term can be extended. It may be apposite to note here that even if the maximum age-limit is provided for submission of application and the period of appointment is three years, it is extendable depending upon the performance. Having regard to the nature of language used, it is to be construed that it is a contract appointment to choose a highly qualified and skilled person. The extension is also dependent upon performance. No limit is provided for number of extensions. It would depend upon the capability, efficiency and suitability as adjudged by the employer. Needless to say, for grant of extension the person would not have a right. Similarly his continuance for the term of three years will depend upon the nature of appointment letter issued to him. Thus viewed, we are inclined to think that the principle stated in Hari Bansh Lal case [Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 771] would get attracted. That apart, there is no maximum age-limit for Chairman. He holds a higher post and his experience and capability have been appreciated by the Commission. 6. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, I find that renewal of a contractual appointment is not a matter of right but is dependent upon the employer’s assessment of work and conduct. The respondents have stated that the petitioner’s work was not found satisfactory and after considering the relevant government circular and reports, a conscious decision was taken not to renew the contract. Further non extension of tenure cannot be counted as a stigma. In that view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 29.01.2026 Tanuj Uploaded on 31.01.2026