Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court, in a judgment delivered on 18 February 2021, addressed a writ petition filed by a contractual dentist whose services were terminated by the District Health Society, Begusarai. The petitioner had been working at a Referral Hospital in Manjhaul since his appointment in 2006 on a contractual basis. His contract had been renewed several times until his termination in 2020.
The main grievance raised was that his termination was carried out without any prior notice or opportunity to show cause, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the terms of his agreement. The petitioner argued that he had been serving for nearly 14 years and that no regular appointment had yet been made against the post he was holding. Therefore, his removal was unfair and arbitrary.
On the other hand, the State submitted that the petitioner was never appointed against a sanctioned post. His employment was purely contractual and subject to termination once regular appointments were made through the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC). By 2020, 543 dentists had been recruited through BPSC, and the government had decided to discontinue all contractual dental appointments. The State argued that since the petitioner’s position was not a sanctioned one, there was no question of regularization.
The Court observed that in matters of contractual employment, the rights of the employee are strictly governed by the contract. Unless there is a breach of a fundamental right, the writ court cannot be used to enforce contractual terms. The Court reiterated that contractual appointments do not confer any right to permanent employment, nor do they create a legal claim for continuation after regular appointments are made.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition. However, it clarified that the petitioner would remain free to approach an appropriate forum under common law (such as civil courts) for remedies related to breach of agreement. The dismissal was not to prejudice his rights in any such proceedings.
In essence, the judgment emphasizes that contractual employees in the health sector cannot claim the same rights as regular government employees, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to enforce contractual service disputes.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- Clarity on contractual employment – The judgment reinforces the settled position that contractual employees cannot demand regularization or continuation once permanent appointments are made.
- Impact on healthcare professionals – Many doctors and dentists in Bihar and other states work on contractual terms. This ruling underscores that their service is contingent upon government policy and recruitment through public service commissions.
- Limited scope of writ jurisdiction – The Court has once again made it clear that writ petitions are not the proper remedy for breaches of purely contractual terms unless there is a violation of a fundamental right.
- Guidance for future disputes – The case indicates that affected contractual employees should pursue remedies under common law rather than invoking writ jurisdiction.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether termination of a contractual dentist without show-cause notice violated natural justice
• Decision: No. Since the post was contractual and not sanctioned, principles of natural justice did not apply in the same way as for regular government servants. - Whether a contractual employee can claim right to continue in service or regularization
• Decision: No. The Court held that contractual appointments do not confer rights, interests, or benefits of regular service. - Whether writ jurisdiction can enforce terms of a contract
• Decision: No. The remedy for breach of contract lies under common law, not under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title
Dr. Kundan Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6922 of 2020
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 112
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate; Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
- For the Respondents (State): Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Standing Counsel 12; Mr. Kamlesh Kishore, AC to SC-12
Link to Judgment
MTUjNjkyMiMyMDIwIzEjTg==-4x3bsccJc0w=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
