Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/17 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 2 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/17
GAHC010138602025
2026:GAU-AS:5217
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3582/2025
JAWAHIR MD. EKBAL
SON OF FOYZUR RAHMAN LASKAR, R/O.- HOUSE NO. 445 K, AULIA TILLA
LANE, UTTAR KRISHNAPUR PART II, P.O. UTTAR KRISHNAPUR, DIST.
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
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K TALUKDAR, K A SODIAL,MR. J M A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/17
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 02-04-2026 Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the preset writ petition has assailed an order dated 02-06-2025, passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Assam Skilled University Project relieving the petitioner from his contractual engagement as Finance Manager w.e.f. 05-06-2025.
3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner in pursuance to a process of recruitment was selected for the post of Finance Manager. The select list in this connection was so published on 21-05-2022. Thereafter, vide a communication dated 21- 05-2022, the petitioner was offered the post of Finance Manager, Project Management Unit of Assam Skilled University Project (ASUP) and he was required to join the organization on 01-06-2022. Thereafter, the petitioner had executed an agreement on 10- 03-2023, with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), ASUP. In terms of the said agreement the engagement of the petitioner as Finance Manager was to commence from 01-07- 2022. Clause-3 of the said agreement mandates that the engagement was purely contractual and shall automatically terminate after 31-05-2023, if not terminated earlier, based on unsatisfactory performance/ conduct as solely determined by the CEO or extended based on satisfactory performance/ conduct as determined by the CEO and/ or Page No.# 3/17 linked to further extension of the project period by Govt. of Assam, Govt. of India and also Asian Development Bank. The said agreement was, thereafter, renewed and the contractual engagement of the petitioner was extended from 01-06-2023 to 30-04-2024. However, vide an order dated 16-10-2023 issued by the CEO, ASUP, the contractual services of the petitioner came to be terminated for the reasons assigned therein. On the termination of the contractual engagement of the petitioner, an advertisement dated 02- 12-2023, came to be issued scheduling a walk in interview dated 05-12-2023, for the post held by the petitioner till date of his termination. The petitioner being aggrieved by his termination of the contractual agreement had approached this Court by instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7010/2023. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28-02-2024, noticing that the termination of the contractual engagement of the petitioner was so effected without affording to him an opportunity of hearing proceeded to interfere with the impugned order dated 16-10-2023, terminating the contractual engagement of the petitioner with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner back in service. Thereafter, the CEO, ASUP vide a communication dated 27-05-2025, required the petitioner to submit a written response within 48 hours for internal review as to why he may not be considered for relieving from the project responsibilities. In the said communication it was highlighted that on account of recent failure on the part of the petitioner to initiate the necessary discussions with the TA Consultant have reflected a serious oversight on his part and a negligence has resulted in an incorrect Annual Expenditure and Financial Statement (AEFS) being submitted which has the effect of questioning the diligence with which he was discharging his responsibilities. The petitioner Page No.# 4/17 has submitted his response to the said communication dated 27-05-2025, on 28-05-2025 and, therein, clarified his stand with regard to the allegations levelled against him.
4. Thereafter, considering the show-cause notice dated 27-05-2025 as well as the reply thereto submitted by the petitioner on 28-05-2025, by holding that the petitioner was found to be aware of the documents to be forwarded to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and due diligence to be taken not being adhered to before submission and also that even after the documents were marked to the petitioner over mail, proactive steps not being found to have been taken to ensure that the documents submitted were as per the ADB norms and guidelines, the petitioner came to be relieved from his duties as Finance Manager effectively from 05-06-2025. The petitioner was provided salary for notice period of 30 days as per Human Resource Policy of the organization. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 05-06-2025, for recruitment against the post of Finance Manager, held earlier by the petitioner.
5. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.
6. At this stage, it is to be noted that this Court while issuing notice in the matter vide order dated 25-06-2026, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as an ad interim measure had provided that the respondent may process the advertisement dated 05-06-2025, if so advised, but no final order appointing any candidate to the post of Finance Manager for ASUP shall be issued without the leave of the Court.
7. Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, submitted that the contractual engagement of the petitioner as Page No.# 5/17 Finance Manager was extended w.e.f. 01-05-2024 up to 31-05-2026, vide an agreement executed on 01-05-2024. However, he submits that the petitioner was released from his services w.e.f. 02-06-2025. By referring to the show-cause notice dated 27-05-2025, Mr. Talukdar has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner was that he should have verified the AEFS thoroughly and also was to have discussed the same with the Technical Assistant (TA) Consultant prior to its final submission. It was further projected that the steps was especially important given that the previous AEFS submissions had received critical feedback, which was later corrected with input from the TA Consultant. He submits that basing on the projections, it was alleged that there was serious oversight on the part of the petitioner as well as negligence which has resulted in an incorrect AEFS being submitted, which has the effect of questioning the diligence which the petitioner was discharging his responsibilities. Mr. Talukdar submits that the petitioner had vide his reply dated 28-05-2025, dealt with the said allegations and therein, had projected that it was only after final submission of the AEFS to the ADB after due approval by the Governing Council, on it being circulated on 18-03-2025 that a copy was received by him on the same being marked to him. Mr. Talukdar further submits that the petitioner had projected that had the draft AEFS shared to him earlier, as was done in the previous years or had there being any instruction to review, steps as mandated in the matter, would have been taken at due time and ensured thorough vetting in consultation with the TA Consultant, in accordance with the established protocol. Mr. Talukdar basing on the above facts submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are clearly perverse and petitioner not being involved in the submission of the AEFS, he could not have been held to be Page No.# 6/17 responsible for any default occasioning, therein. Mr. Talukdar submits that after submission of the said reply by the petitioner on 28-05-2025, the CEO, ASUP still proceeded to relieve the petitioner from his engagement as a Finance Manager and to justify such release had projected that even after the documents were marked to the petitioner, no proactive steps were taken by the petitioner to ensure that the documents submitted were as per ADB norms and guidelines. Mr. Talukdar submits that the projection made in the impugned communication dated 02-06-2025, reveals that the AEFS were already submitted to the ADB before the same was forwarded to the petitioner and accordingly, once the same was so submitted there would arise no occasion for the petitioner to take any steps to rectify any error existing, therein.
8. Mr. Talukdar further submits that vide a notification dated 30-04-2025, the Project Management Unit, wherein, the petitioner was so serving was transitioned from Assam Skill Development Mission to the Assam Skill University w.e.f. 01-01-2025 and the Project Management Unit was now required to be operated by the Assam Skill University Project as the designated implementing agency. Mr. Talukdar submits that the AEFS was admittedly submitted forwarded to the ADB by the Assam State Development Mission and the petitioner was not involved with the said Mission pursuant to the transition occasioning in the matter in terms of the notification dated 30-04-2025. Mr. Talukdar, accordingly, submits that the petitioner could not have been held to be responsible in any manner with regard to the submission of the AEFS by the Assam Skill Development Mission and accordingly, he submits that the very basis for releasing the petitioner from his contractual as Finance Manager w.e.f. 05-06-2025 is perverse. Mr. Talukdar further Page No.# 7/17 submits that in terms of the agreement executed in the matter with regard to the engagement of the petitioner as Finance Manager of the Project Management Unit, it is seen that the services of the petitioner was co-terminus with the project and accordingly, the project being in existence, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated. In this connection, Mr. Talukdar has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Kadir & Anr. Vs. DGP, Assam, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611.
9. Per contra, Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, at the outset has referred to the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition and submits that the petitioner, while praying for interference with the impugned order dated 02-06-2025, as well as the advertisement dated 05-06-2025 issued in the meanwhile, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authority for continuance of the engagement of the petitioner as Finance Manager of the ASUP. He submits that the same is not maintainable, inasmuch as, this Court on the expiry of the contract involved would not direct for the continuance of the petitioner in his contractual engagement. He submits that the contract of the petitioner had expired, on the own showing of the petitioner, w.e.f. 31-03-2025 and accordingly, on the date when the writ petition was filed before this Court, there being no subsisting contract, the petitioner cannot be directed to be continued in his services.
10 Mr. Bora has further submitted that the relieving of the petitioner from his contractual engagement as Finance Manager was so done strictly in accordance with the provision of contract agreement entered into with the petitioner by the organization and Page No.# 8/17 the same was on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. It is submitted that the AEFS was required to be thoroughly reviewed, verified and discussed with the TA Consultant prior to its final submission by the petitioner, more particularly, when the earlier AEFS submitted by the petitioner had received critical feedback and it mandated correction after discussion with the TA Consultant. He submits that even assuming though not admitting that the petitioner was not involved in the submission of the AEFS at the first instance, the same being marked to him, the petitioner was required to take proactive steps of his own, with regard to the rectification of the defects noticed in the AEFS. Accordingly, a lapse having come to the notice of the authorities with regard to the discharge of his duties by the petitioner, he was issued with a show-cause notice and thereafter, he had submitted a reply thereto and it is only then that the respondent authorities had proceeded to examine the matter. He submits that after careful consideration of the reply of the petitioner, that the impugned order dated 02-06-2025 came to be issued. The petitioner having been relieved from his services, recruitment notice dated 05-06-2025, was published for the post of Finance Manager. Mr. Bora has further submitted that the selection process in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05- 06-2025 was completed and engagement of a suitable person as Finance Manager was not permissible in view of the interim direction operating in the matter. He submits that the respondent No. 2 and 3 have already filed an interlocutory application for vacation of the interim direction passed by this Court in the present proceeding vide order dated 25- 06-2025.
11. In the above premises, Mr. Bora submits that the petitioner being so relieved from Page No.# 9/17 his engagement as Finance Manager with the Project Management Unit of ASUP, noticing his performance and strictly in accordance with the provisions of agreement entered into with him in the matter, no stigma being attached to the petitioner on account of such relieving, the present writ petition would not mandate consideration on merits, more so, when there is no subsisting contract in the favour of the petitioner on the date when the present writ petition was so instituted.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.
13. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioner was relieved from his engagement vide a communication dated 16-10-2023. The said order relieving him from his contractual engagement was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7010/2023. The grounds of termination was noticed by the coordinate Bench of this Court and the coordinate Bench of this Court also noticing that the petitioner's contractual engagement was terminated without affording an opportunity of hearing to him, had proceeded vide order dated 28-02-2024 to interfere with the termination effected in respect of the contractual engagement of the petitioner vide the communication dated 16-10-2023 and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner against the post of Finance Manager. However, liberty was granted to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner, if so advised, however, by following the procedure established by law. The petitioner was, thereafter, issued with a show-cause notice dated 27-05-2025. The allegation levelled against the petitioner, therein, is extracted here-in- below:-
Page No.# 10/17 "Subject: Concerns Regarding Performance in AEFS Submission - Assam Skill University Project It has been observed that there have been recurring issues concerning the performance of your responsibilities as the Financial Manager (FM) for the Assam Skill University Project (ASUP).
In particular, the Annual Expenditure and Financial Statement (AEFS) should have been thoroughly reviewed, verified, and discussed with the Technical Assistance (TA) Consultant prior to its final submission this step was especially important given that previous AEFS submissions had received critical feedback, which was later corrected with input from the TA Consultant.
However, your recent failure to initiate the necessary discussions with the TA Consultant before submission reflects a serious oversight. This negligence has resulted in an incorrect AEFS being submitted, question the diligence with which your responsibilities are being handled.
Considering the serious lapse outlined above you are herewith show caused and directed to submit written response within 48 hours for internal review why you may not be considered for relieving from ASUP responsibilities."
14. A perusal of the said communication dated 27-05-2025, would reveals that it was highlighted, therein, that there were recurring issues concerning the performance of the petitioner as Finance Manager of ASUP. It was further highlighted that the AEFS, which were required to be thoroughly reviewed, verified and discussed with the TA Consultant prior to its final submission, the said steps is projected to be important on account of the previous AEFS submission having received critical feedback, which had mandated correction with the input from the TA Consultant. It was further projected that the failure on the part of the petitioner to initiate necessary discussion with the TA Consultant before submission of the AEFS reflects serious oversight and negligence and the same had resulted in an incorrect AEFS being submitted, which questions the diligence which the petitioner was handling his responsibilities.
15. The petitioner responded to the allegations as set out in the communication dated Page No.# 11/17 27-05-2025, by way of a communication dated 28-05-2025. The petitioner in his reply projected that the AEFS in question was neither shared with him nor any member of his team prior to its submission to ADB. Accordingly, it was projected that he was not in a position to review, verify, or share the draft with the TA Consultant for his feedback, as would have been the standard process. It was further projected that the petitioner had made multiple follow up with the Assam Skill Development Mission (ASDM) authorities for preparation and finalization of their financial statement. He further projected that the queries raised by the Auditor of ASDM were promptly responded to with detailed justification and reconciliation on 10-12-2024. The petitioner also projected that it is only after the final submission of the AEFS to the ADB after due approval of the Governing Council, ASDM, that the same was circulated with a copy marked to the petitioner. Accordingly, it was contended that had the draft AEFS being shared with the petitioner, as was the practice in the previous year, or had there been any instruction to review it, timely action would have been taken including thorough vetting in consultation with the TA Consultant in accordance with the established protocol.
16. After submission of the said reply by the petitioner, the matter was considered by the CEO and vide order dated 02-06-2025, the petitioner came to be relieved from his duties as Finance Manager w.e.f. 05-06-2025. The contents of the said communication dated 02-06-2025, being relevant is extracted here-in-below:-
"This is with reference to the show cause notice issued to you on 27.05.2025 and your subsequent reply dated 28.05.2025. After careful consideration, the management has reviewed your explanation in detail. Unfortunately, after enquiry, it is found that you were aware of the documents being forwarded to Asian Development Bank and the due diligence to be taken were not adhered to before Page No.# 12/17 submission Further, even after submission, wherein the documents were marked to you over mail, proactive steps were not taken to ensure whether the documents submitted were as per the ADB norms and guidelines.
In view of this, it has been decided to relieve you from your duties as Finance Manager, effective from 05.06. 2025, You have to hand over the charge to Mr. Sumit Jain, Accountant. Assam Skill University Project.
As per the terms and conditions of your employment and the applicable HR policies, you will be provided salary for the notice period of 30 days, commencing from the effective date mentioned above. You are instructed to hand over all responsibilities, official documents, and assets entrusted to you by Assam Skill University prior to the processing of your final settlement.
Please consider this letter as a formal communication of your relieving from services with Assam Skill University Project."
17. A perusal of the contents of the said communication dated 02-06-2025 would reveal that it was projected, therein, that the petitioner was aware of the documents being forwarded to the ADB and due diligence was not found to have been taken before submission of the said documents. It was further projected that even after submission, when the documents were marked to the petitioner over mail, proactive steps were not taken to ensure that the documents submitted, were as per ADB norms and guidelines. Basing on the said issue, the petitioner was relieved from his duties as Finance Manager effecting from 05-06-2025.
18. As noticed, hereinabove, on 01-05-2024, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the CEO of the ASUP pertaining to his engagement as Finance Manager for the period w.e.f. 01-05-2024 till 31-03-2025. Clause-3 of the said agreement being relevant is extracted here-in-below:-
"3. The term of the engagement, shall be purely contractual and shall automatically terminate after 31 May 2025 in PMU for ASU Project, if not Page No.# 13/17 terminated earlier based on unsatisfactory performance/conduct as solely determined by Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or extended based on satisfactory performance/conduct as determined by Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and/or linked to further extension of the project period by Govt. of Assam, Govt. of India and also Asian Development Bank."
19. A perusal of the said terms of agreement reveals that the engagement was purely contractual and would stand terminate after 31-05-2025, if not terminated earlier based on unsatisfactory performance. This Court finds from the materials brought on record that there was no allegation on any misconduct levelled against the petitioner and in the matter what was projected against the petitioner was his unsatisfactory performance. Unsatisfactory performance which was noticed for the purpose of relieving the petitioner from the post of Finance Manager was that he had not taken due diligence for ensuring that the AEFS was submitted to the ADB without any error existing therein. The petitioner having in his reply highlighted that the draft of the AEFS was never forwarded to him which had prevented him from taking any further steps in the matter, in the impugned order it was projected that the AEFS on its submission to the ADB, a copy thereof was marked to the petitioner, however, the petitioner was not found to have not taken proactive steps to review the said AEFS and to highlight any inconsistency existing therein. Accordingly, this Court finds that the petitioner was relieved from his service in accordance with Clause-3 of the contract agreement in question basing on unsatisfactory performance of his responsibility as Finance Manager. There is no allegation of any misconduct levelled against the petitioner, in the matter.
20. Having noticed the above position, this Court finds that the contract in question was in currency till 31-03-2025, no further extension of the contract after 30-03-2025 has Page No.# 14/17 been brought on record by the petitioner. The relieving of the petitioner had occasioned on 05-06-2025, vide communication dated 02-06-2025. Accordingly, on the date when the present writ petition was so instituted before this Court, there was no contract in currency pertaining to the continuance of the petitioner as Finance Manager under the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
21. The issue pertaining to the legal rights of a contractual appointee came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GRIDCO Limited & Anr. Vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors., reported in (2011) 15 SCC 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upon noticing its earlier decisions on the issue, held as follows:
"38. A conspectus of the pronouncements of this Court and the development of law over the past few decades thus show that there has been a notable shift from the stated legal position settled in earlier decisions, that termination of a contractual employment in accordance with the terms of the contract was permissible and the employee could claim no protection against such termination even when one of the contracting parties happened to be the State. Remedy for a breach of a contractual condition was also by way of civil action for damages/compensation. With the development of law relating to judicial review of administrative actions, a writ court can now examine the validity of a termination order passed by public authority. It is no longer open to the authority passing the order to argue that its action being in the realm of contract is not open to judicial review.
39. A writ court is entitled to judicially review the action and determine whether there was any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality that would vitiate the action, no matter the action is in the realm of contract. Having said that we must add that judicial review cannot extend to the Court acting as an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the decision. The Court cannot sit in the armchair of the Administrator to decide whether a more reasonable decision or course of action could have been taken in the circumstances. So long as the action taken by the authority is not shown to be vitiated by the infirmities referred to above and so long as the action is not demonstrably in outrageous defiance of logic, the writ court would do well to respect the decision under challenge."
Page No.# 15/17
22. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Textile Corporation Limited Vs. Suresh Kumar , reported in (2011) 15 SCC 180, being relevant to the issue arising in the present proceeding, is being noticed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said case; considering the effect of non-extension of the period of contractual engagement, held that the contractual engagement of the respondent, therein, having come to an end, no relief beyond that period, could have been granted. Accordingly, the directions passed in the matter by the High Court allowing the respondent (before Hon'ble Supreme Court) to continue in his services, came to be modified and the respondent was deemed to be in service till the currency of his contractual engagement. The relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar (Supra) is reproduced here-in-below:
"4. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised primarily two arguments before us. He has contended that the reference to the unauthorised absence of the respondent could not in any manner be said to be stigmatic and that the finding to the contrary was unsustainable. Alternatively, he has contended that the respondent had joined the post on 7-9-1987 for a period of three years which would have come to an end on 6-9-1990 and as such the direction for reinstatement could not have been granted to him. It has been pleaded that as a consequence of the order of the Tribunal and of the High Court, the respondent has been put back into service.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has however supported the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court.
6. In the facts of the case we need not examine the effect of the order dated 26-4-1989 whereby the services of the respondent had been terminated as being stigmatic or not as we are of the opinion that in the light of the fact that appointment itself was for a fixed period of three years which would have come to an end on 6-9-1990, no relief beyond that period could have been given to the respondent by the Tribunal or the High Court. We accordingly feel that these orders need to be modified to the extent that the appellant shall be deemed to be in service up to 6-9-1990 and not thereafter."
Page No.# 16/17
23. Applying the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, noticed hereinabove, to the facts as arising in the present proceeding, it being crystal clear that the contractual engagement of the petitioner, herein, had come to an end on 31-05-2025, and thereafter, admittedly, there being no order extending such contractual engagement of the petitioner; this Court in the guise of exercise of the power of judicial review, would not substitute its decision, for the decision of the executive authority on the ground that the decision of this Court is more reasonable. This Court cannot extend the period of the contractual engagement of the appellant, herein, after the same had come an end. Further, the contentions of Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the termination of the contractual engagement of the appellant, herein, was stigmatic; would also not mandate acceptance in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Suresh Kumar(Supra).
24. If the period of contractual engagement of the petitioner was in currency, and a termination of the engagement had occasioned, it would have been open to this Court by exercising its power of judicial review, to examine the legality, or, otherwise of such termination, but, in the facts involved in the present case; that is no longer permissible in view of the expiry of the period of the contractual engagement of the petitioner on 05-06- 2025, which was, thereafter, not extended. Further, as noticed, hereinabove, the relieving of the petitioner was solely on the ground of unsatisfactory service and no stigma is found to be attracted, thereto.
25. If any breach has occasioned with regard to the discontinuation of the services of the petitioner, it would only give rise to a cause of action for damages/compensation, for Page No.# 17/17 which, the remedy available is institution of a Civil Suit and not a writ petition.
26. In view of the conclusions as drawn hereinabove, the prayer of the petitioner for a direction towards continuation of his contractual engagement, cannot be accepted. Further, the order dated 02-06-2025 would also not mandate any interference.
27. In view of the conclusions drawn, hereinabove, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.
28. The interim directions passed vide order dated 25-06-2025 stands vacated.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant