$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010411862026 + W.P.(C) 12720/2026 DR MANOJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sahil A. Garg Narwana, Mr. Dipesh Singhal, Mr. Naveen Tanwar and Mr. Kesri Nandan V. Atri, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC with Mr. Vanshul Pali, G.P., Mr. Vineet Negi, Ms. Kavya Shukla, Mr. Vibhav V. Nath, Ms. Riya Garg, Ms. Nandini Singh and Mr. Kartik K., Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 02.09.2026 1. The Petitioner was engaged as Assistant Curator (Research) for the National Maritime Heritage Complex (“NMHC”), Lothal. The advertisement pursuant to which he was selected contemplated a contractual engagement for two years, extendable by one further year, at a consolidated remuneration of INR 60,000 per month. The Petitioner joined on 6th February, 2019. 2. His engagement was brought to an end by impugned notice dated 9th August, 2019. Since the controversy substantially turns upon the terms in which the decision was communicated, the notice is extracted below: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/09/2026 at 13:57:55 “It is informed that the services of Dr. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Curator (Research) for National Maritime Heritage Complex, Lothal is hereby terminated on the ground of non-performance. The notice period of one month will commence from the date of issue of this letter.” 3. The Petitioner’s principal grievance is that the stated ground of “non- performance” is contrary to the Respondents’ own contemporaneous record. He relies upon the monthly attendance and performance reports from February to July, 2019, which, according to him, assessed his performance as satisfactory. He further contends that no show-cause notice, warning or other communication concerning any deficiency in his performance was issued before the impugned notice. The Petitioner also points out that fresh applications for the same post had been invited on 29th June, 2019; interviews were held on 5th August, 2019; and, shortly after his termination, three candidates were declared selected on 19th August, 2019. On this basis, he contends that the termination was arbitrary and was, in effect, intended to replace him with another contractual appointee. 4. The Petitioner had initially challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2686/2019. The proceedings remained pending until 5th December, 2024, when, following an objection to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Petitioner withdrew the O.A. with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The present petition was thereafter instituted in 2026. 5. Two features of the engagement are material. First, it was contractual and for a limited tenure. Even assuming the extension of one year in the Petitioners favour, which was itself not automatic, the maximum tenure contemplated by the advertisement would have come to an end in February, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/09/2026 at 13:57:55 2022. Reinstatement in 2026 is, therefore, plainly not capable of being granted. 6. Second, although the letter of appointment has not been placed on record, the writ petition itself specifically states that the appointment could be terminated by either side upon one month’s notice. The impugned notice accorded precisely that period. No Service or Conduct Rule prescribing any different procedure for such termination has been placed before the Court. 7. The fact that the engagement was contractual does not, by itself, place the action of a public authority beyond judicial review. In GRIDCO Ltd. v. Sadananda Doloi,1 the Supreme Court held that termination of contractual employment by a public authority is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 where the action is shown to suffer from illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality. At the same time, the Court cautioned that judicial review does not permit the writ court to sit as an appellate authority over the employer’s decision or to examine whether a more reasonable course of action could have been adopted. 8. It is within these limited parameters that the Petitioner’s challenge must be examined. The monthly performance reports relied upon by him do reveal an apparent inconsistency with the ground of “non-performance” stated in the termination notice. That, however, would not justify this Court undertaking a fresh evaluation of his performance. Whether those reports represented the complete assessment of his work, or whether there was other material bearing upon his performance, are matters which lie within the domain of the employer. The engagement was terminable upon one month’s notice and the impugned notice was issued in exercise of that contractual This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/09/2026 at 13:57:55 power. 9. Nor does the use of the expression “non-performance” render the termination punitive and stigmatic. As explained in Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences,2 an order of termination does not become stigmatic merely because it reflects upon the employee’s suitability for the engagement; to constitute stigma, the language employed must impute something over and above mere unsuitability for the job. The expression “non-performance”, without anything further, does not carry such an imputation. The material placed before the Court, therefore, does not disclose any ground warranting interference under Article 226. 10. Further, the subsequent selection of other contractual Assistant Curators does not, by itself, confer upon the Petitioner a right to continue in service. The principle that one contractual or ad hoc employee should not ordinarily be replaced by another cannot be divorced from the terms of the engagement in question. It does not override an otherwise valid contractual provision permitting termination, nor can it enlarge a fixed tenure into a right to continue. 11. What survives, therefore, are essentially monetary claims. The Petitioner seeks compensation for the alleged premature termination as well as reimbursement of TA/DA stated to have been incurred during official travel. Those claims would require determination of matters such as the terms governing reimbursement, proof of expenditure, the circumstances surrounding the termination, actual loss suffered by the Petitioner and, in the case of damages, mitigation. These are not matters which the Court 1 (2011) 15 SCC 16. 2 (2002) 1 SCC 520. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/09/2026 at 13:57:55 considers appropriate to adjudicate in the present writ proceedings. 12. The Petitioner is accordingly left at liberty to pursue such remedy as may be available to him in law in respect of his claim for damages, TA/DA or any other outstanding monetary dues. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an adjudication upon the merits of those claims. Any question of limitation or other defence available to the Respondents is also left open. 13. There is, however, no reason to withhold a certificate recording the service actually rendered by the Petitioner. The Respondents shall, within four weeks, issue to the Petitioner an experience certificate recording his designation and the period during which he actually served as Assistant Curator (Research). The certificate need not contain any assessment of his performance. 14. In the above terms, the writ petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/09/2026 at 13:57:55