Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010072612026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/133/2026 JAWAHIR MD. EKBAL S/O FOYZUR RAHMAN LASKAR, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 445K, AULIA TILLA LANE, UTTAR KRISHNAPUR PART-II, P.O- UTTAR KRISHNAPUR, DISTRICT CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SKILL EMPLOYMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE MISSION DIRECTOR ASSAM SKILL DEVELOPMENT MISSION 5TH FLOOR DPS ROAD KATABARI GORCHUK GUWAHATI- 35. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ASSAM SKILL UNIVERSITY PROJECT 3RD FLOOR DECT OFFICE COMPLEX REHABARI GUWAHATI-08 For the petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. S. K. Talukdar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Borah, Advocate Ms. Sumitra Sharma, GA, Assam Page No.# 2/5 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 29.05.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. D. Borah, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3; Ms. Sumitra Sharma, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent No. 1. The impugned judgment dated 02.04.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 3582/2025, has been questioned by the appellant on the ground that notwithstanding the stigmatic termination of contract of the appellant, it has been held by the learned Single Judge that the order of termination of the contractual engagement did not carry any stigma and it was simply a closure of the terms of agreement, which expired on 31.05.2025. It appears that the appellant was engaged as a Finance Manager under the Assam Skill Development Mission (ASDM) for the Assam Skill University Project (ASUP), which is funded by the Asian Development Bank. The appellant claims that he was selected through an appropriate recruitment process against an advertisement and his selection as a Finance Manager was confirmed in the year 2022. A contractual agreement was entered into with the appellant for serving in the Assam Skill University Project for a particular period. The tenure of such contract came to a closure on 31.03.2025, but the appellant continued working thereafter. In the meanwhile, the Project Management Unit of the ASDM was Page No.# 3/5 transitioned from ASDM to Assam Skill University, and the University became the implementing agency for the mission. It further appears from the records that a Show Cause notice had been issued to the appellant alleging that he had been negligent in submitting Annual Expenditure and Financial Statement to the Asian Development Bank and that there was no consultation on his part with the Technical Assistance consultants. The charge against the appellant was denied by him. In fact, it was clarified by the appellant that he had not submitted the Annual Expenditure and Financial Statement, rather, it was submitted by the Assam Skill Development Mission after obtaining all the approvals for furnishing of such statements. However, vide an order dated 02.06.2025, the term of the contract with the appellant was concluded and he stood relieved from the Assam Skill University Project. This termination of contract was questioned by the appellant before a learned Single Judge of this Court, who concluded that the appellant was under a contractual agreement which stood terminated after 31.05.2025. However, as noted above, the learned Single Judge found that there was no material brought on record to indicate that there was any allegation of misconduct against the appellant. The unsatisfactory performance, the learned Single Judge observed, was taken into account for the purpose of relieving the appellant from his engagement as Finance Manager. Such dissatisfaction was on the basis of the employer noticing that the appellant had not been diligent enough in ensuring that the Annual Expenditure and Financial Statement was Page No.# 4/5 properly submitted to the Asian Development Bank. The learned Single Judge went into the allegation of the appellant not being diligent, but because the appointment of the appellant was purely contractual and there was no extension of the contract, it was observed that there cannot be a judicial review of a decision not to renew the contract or that limiting the service of an employee, in such cases, would not be a better option. The learned Single Judge also observed that no stigma was found to be attracted to the termination of the contractual engagement of the appellant. However, we find that the order dated 02.06.2025 is stigmatic. Sensing that the earlier order referred to above bears the element of stigma, the Chief Executive Officer of the Assam Skill University Project has now issued another letter dated 08.05.2026, indicating the confirmation of the completion of appellant’s contractual engagement as also the decision not to renew the contractual engagement. It was also clarified in the letter dated 08.05.2026 that no financial liability with respect to the appellant would be incurred by the Assam Skill University Project beyond 30.06.2025, i.e. the date of expiry of the term of contract with the appellant. With this letter dated 08.05.2026 having been issued by the employer, there cannot be said to be any stigma on the appellant in the termination of his contractual engagement, except perhaps the fact that this letter dated 08.05.2026 has been shown to be issued in continuation of the earlier letter dated 27.06.2025. The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that though this letter 08.05.2026 has been stated to be issued Page No.# 5/5 in continuation of the earlier letter dated 27.06.2025, however, it only spells out the decision of not extending the tenure of contract with the appellant. We, thus, hold that the letter dated 08.05.2026 does not bear any stigma so far as the appellant is concerned. The termination of the appellant is held to be non-stigmatic and that the foreclosure of the tenure of the engagement of the appellant is purely contractual. With the issuance of the letter dated 08.05.2026, there would be no necessity of keeping the earlier order dated 27.06.2025 on record. The order dated 27.06.2025 is, thus, set aside. With such interpretation and understanding of the letter dated 08.05.2026, Mr. Talukdar, learned Advocate for the appellant does not press this appeal any further. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant