NARAYAN DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was appointed in 1970 as an Assistant Teacher and was promoted on the post of Lecturer in 1998, a post on which he worked until 30 June 2010 which was the date of his superannuation.

(2.) The case of the appellant, however, is that he was allowed to work until 30 June 2012. On 5 September 2002, the appellant received a National Award for the year 2001. According to the appellant, the National Award made him eligible for being granted an extension of service in terms of Government Orders dated 6 May 1982 and 23 October 1991. The claim of the appellant for extension in service was not being decided, following which he filed a writ petition which was disposed of with a direction that an appropriate decision be taken on the claim of the appellant for extension in service within three months. The claim was rejected on 26 July 2010 on the ground that the appellant had completed his B.Ed. without obtaining leave, irrespective of the fact that the place of training was at the distance of 20 kilometers from the institution where he was employed. The appellant challenged the order dated 26 July 2010 in a writ petition1. The petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 4 January 2011 with a direction to the State to examine the case of the appellant for extension of service afresh in accordance with the relevant Government Orders. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed on 29 April 2011. The order states that the Selection Committee had declined to grant its recommendation in regard to the extension of service and reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court dated 2 November 2010 in Tarkeshwar Nath Srivastava Vs State of U.P.2, wherein it was held that in the event the conduct and work of a teacher is not satisfactory, the State Government is not obliged to grant an extension in service.

(3.) The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for challenging the order of the State Government dated 29 April 2011, by the impugned order dated 6 September 2014 holding that the extension of service was not a matter of right but was at the sole discretion of the employer. Moreover, it was held that the application for extension was rejected by a reasoned order, which could not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution.