Contractual appointment and termination under writ review sustained where no arbitrariness, mala fides, or illegality was shown.

The appointment was contractual, not regular, because the offer, appointment order, and service regulations expressly treated the engagement as a fixed-tenure contract terminable on notice or salary in lieu of notice, and the respondent's own request for amendment reflected that understanding. Writ review under Article 226 could intervene in a contractual State action only if the decision was arbitrary, unfair, irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate, mala fide, or otherwise illegal; on the facts, the termination complied with the contract terms and no such infirmity was shown. The High Court's judgment was set aside, the termination was sustained, and no recovery of amounts already paid was ordered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's appointment was contractual or regular in nature; (ii) whether the termination of the contractual appointment was vitiated by any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's appointment was contractual or regular in nature

Analysis: The offer of appointment and the formal appointment order expressly described the engagement as a contract for a fixed tenure, renewable at the employer's discretion and terminable by either side on notice or salary in lieu of notice. The governing service regulations also contemplated contractual appointment for posts above E-9. The subsequent amendment sought by the respondent itself reflected the understanding that the appointment was on contract basis with only an outer limit of service till superannuation.

Conclusion: The appointment was contractual and not regular.

Issue (ii): Whether the termination of the contractual appointment was vitiated by any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Analysis: Judicial review extends to contractual actions of the State or its instrumentalities where the decision is shown to be arbitrary, unfair, irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate, mala fide, or otherwise vitiated by illegality. However, the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority or substitute its view for that of the employer. On the facts, the contract was terminable in terms of its clauses, renewal was discretionary, and no material showed unfairness, perversity, irrationality, or mala fides in the decision to terminate.

Conclusion: The termination was not vitiated by any legal infirmity calling for interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the contractual termination was sustained, with no recovery of amounts already paid to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual appointment made under governing service regulations may be terminated in accordance with its terms, and writ interference is confined to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality, unreasonableness, or other legal infirmity in the decision-making process.

---