RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri H.G.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent Shri W.U.Ahmad as well as learned Standing counsel. Perused the records.

(2.) Instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner on account of hiring and firing policy adopted by the respondent University to engage teachers for MBA course under self-financing scheme under the grant of contractual assignment. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed in the year 2003 and 2006 on contractual basis for the period of eleven month to impart education to the students of the respondent University (Institute of Business Studies) on fixed salary. They have been continuing in service from the very inception of Establishment though it was for eleven month. However, respondent took a decision to dispense with the services of petitioners and make a fresh recruitment for the respective courses. Feeling aggrieved with the decision taken by the respondent University, the petitioners had approached this court.

(3.) Shri W.U.Ahmad learned counsel for the respondent, while defending the action of the respondent University submits that no right accrues to the appointees who were appointed on contract basis. He further submits that under self-financing course teachers are engaged keeping in view the strength of the student.