KALI PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. A Scheme under the name ANAUPCHARIK SHIKSHA YOJNA (Non-formal Education Scheme) was adopted by the State Government to provide education to every citizen. The Government Order was issued for the ap pointment of Supervisors and Instructors to carry out the purpose of the Scheme in dif ferent villages. Applications were invited to fill in the post. The petitioners claimed that they were selected and were appointed as Instructors on different dates. There was nothing in the appointment letters to indi cate any specific period for which such ap pointment was made. The only condition was that in case the doors of the centres are found closed during any inspection, then the appointment could be open to termina tion without any notice. The petitioners had been continuously discharging their duties as Instructors in their respective centres but there was no security of job. The respon dents have asked them morally not to come after 30-4-1997. There had been no written order in this regard. The Non- formal Education Centres have not been wound up nor has the Scheme been abandoned. Ac cordingly, the petitioners claimed that the respondents be directed not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners as Instruc tors in the respective centres where they are presently working.

(2.) AN objection was taken by Sri Pushpendra Singh the Additional Chief Stand ing Counsel with reference to two judg ments touching similar points. The judg ments arc not reported. One was recorded in W. P. 1117 (S/s) of 1993 decided by the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The other is also a decision of the same Bench in W. P. No. 3497 (S/s) of 1994. In both these cases it was held that the persons who were working as Instructors had no legally enforceable right to continue on the post of Instructor under the aforesaid scheme and, accordingly, no writ of mandamus could be issued. On be half of the petitioners, it was contended that the State Government could not dis criminate on the question of renewal of the terms of appointment of the petitioners and reliance was placed on the case reported in AIR 1996 SC 864 in which it was held that when it was a professional engagement and not appointment in government service, in cumbent was not entitled to continue in service till attaining the age of superannua tion. But in considering the question of renewal of appointment the State Govern ment acted arbitrarily when it had refused renewal on non-existent grounds.

(3.) IN the result, this writ petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Petition dismissed. .