P. Sam Koshy, J
1. The petitioner in this petition has challenged his discontinuance alleging it to be a malafide termination order.
2. A perusal of records particularly the order of appointment and other documents enclosed in the writ petition clearly reflects that engagement of the
petitioner was purely contractual and that the petitioner has been discontinued only after the contractual period has expired.
3. It is now well settled proposition of law that contractual employees do not have any indefeasible right for continuity in employment beyond the
contract period. Though the counsel for the petitioner tried to emphasize on the fact that the petitioner's service had been extended from time to time
and in the process she has been working for a period of more than 10 years, this by itself would not again give any right in favour of the petitioner as
each time the contract period was renewed for a further period of one year. Renew of contract period or extension to be granted is well within the
domain and realm of the respondents. It is for the respondents to take a decision whether they require services of the petitioner or not.
4. Under the circumstances, this court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for interference with the order Annexures P/6
or P/8. However, right of the petitioner to approach the authorities by making a suitable representation or getting her in employment in case if there is
availability of work as of now or at a later stage is reserved.
5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
