Factual Matrix 

In the Matter of Saroj Gupta v. State of M.P. a situation where a contractual employee’s contract is not renewed due to poor performance. The petitioner in this case was appointed as a Member of the Project Facilitator Team temporarily and only on a contractual basis until June 2012 or until the project’s conclusion, whichever came first, by order dated 11.03.2008. According to the District Project Manager’s order dated June 13, 2018, the petitioner’s contract was not renewed because of its unsatisfactory performance throughout the 2017–18 period. Angered by the District Project Manager’s contested order, the petitioner filed a complaint under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution contesting the legitimacy, legality, and propriety of the contested orders.

Submission From parties

The petitioner argued that the incompetent authority made the contested order not renewing the petitioner’s agreement of contract. 

The defendants said that the petitioner was given several opportunities to enhance her work, therefore it could not be argued that she was not given a chance to be heard.

Conclusion of the Court 

Sanjay Dwivedi, a Justice on a single bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, ruled that claiming regularisation on the basis of past performance and long service is not proper because the order of appointment is very specific that the petitioner’s appointment was purely temporary and coincided with the project.

The Court noted that the petitioner had been hired as a member of the project facilitator team under a set of terms and conditions. The Court further noted that the petitioner’s contract had later been extended to March 31, 2018. The petitioner was given notice of the irregularities and shortcomings in her service and work performance, and an explanation was requested from her, the Court continued, so it cannot be said that she was denied the chance to make a case to the authorities for her subpar performance. The court noted that where the terms and circumstances of the employment declare that it is only temporary, the employee would not have any right to pursue regularisation.

According to the facts and circumstances of the case, the court determined that neither the natural justice principles nor the right to a hearing before deciding to not extend the employee’s contract were violated in the current instance. The Court rejected the current petition because it lacked merit and substance and found nothing incorrect with the respondent authorities’ choice to not renew the petitioner’s contract appointment.

CASE NAME – Saroj Gupta v. State of M.P., Writ Petition No. 17750 of 2018