RAM BRIJ DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.P. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. A counter -affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 (who is also the Member -Secretary of District Peyjal Evam Swakshata Samiti, Agra, Respondent No. 3) has been filed, to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed today. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(2.) THE admitted facts of this case are that under the scheme of the State Government known as “Sampurna Swakshata Ke Karyakram Ke Antargat Janpad Peyjal Evam Swakshata Samiti”, applications were invited for appointment of Computer Programmer, for which the petitioner had also applied. After due selection, the petitioner was given a fixed term appointment on 6 -6 -2001 for a period of six months on a consolidated pay of Rs. 5,000/ - per month. On the expiry of the period of six months, the contract of the petitioner was extended time and again for six months each time and admittedly the last term of the petitioner expired on 16 -6 -2005. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2/3 did not extend the contract of the petitioner and instead issued an advertisement dated 19 -7 -2005 for appointing fresh person as Computer Programmer for a period of six months. Challenging the said advertisement the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Another prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work as Computer Programmer.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since there is no regular sanctioned post of Computer Programmer, the petitioner does not acquire any right to continue merely because of having been given appointment on contract basis; that the respondents are at liberty to remove the petitioner after the completion of the period of contract and appoint any other person, and it has thus been urged that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Further it has been submitted that in the counter -affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2, in paragraph 7 it has been stated that the functioning of the petitioner was not found suitable and satisfactory in the department, and that he was careless in working and was of doubtful character.