AMBRISH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter- alia, praying for quashing the advertisement dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) issued by the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Allahabad, and further praying for directing the respondent no. 3 to continue the petitioners on the post held by them up to 31.12.2008. It appears that an advertisement dated 24.07.2007 (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition) was issued by the respondent no. 3 (Principal, Jila Shiksha Evam Prashikshan Sansthan (DIET), Allahabad), inviting applications for appointment on contractual basis for one year in Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya, Koraon, Allahabad, in respect of various posts mentioned in the said advertisement including the posts of full time teacher/ part time teacher. THE petitioner no. 1 as well as the petitioner no. 2 applied for appointment on the posts of teacher in the aforesaid institution against the aforementioned advertisement. THE petitioner no. 1 was appointed as part-time teacher by the letter dated 10.10.2007 issued by the respondent no. 3. THE appointment of the petitioner no. 1 was on contractual basis for a period of one year from the date of issuance of the appointment letter. Copy of the said appointment letter dated 10.10.2007 has been filed as part of Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition. It is, inter-alia stated in the said appointment letter that the appointment of the petitioner no. 1 was purely temporary for a period of one year only; and that in case any deficiency in discharge of responsibilities of the post was found, the respondent no. 3 would have right to terminate the contract with immediate effect; and that on the completion of the period of contract, the appointment of the petitioner would automatically come to an end. THE petitioner no. 2 was appointed on contractual basis as full-time teacher in the aforesaid institution by the letter dated 10.10.2007 for a period of one year from the date of issuance of the appointment letter. THE terms and conditions of the appointment as well as the period of contract in respect of the petitioner no. 2, as contained in the appointment letter dated 10.10.2007, were similar to those in the case of the petitioner no. 1, as contained in the appointment letter. Copy of the appointment letter dated 10.10.2007 in respect of the petitioner no. 2 has been filed as part of Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition. In view of the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letters of the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2, their respective terms of appointment came to an end on 09.10.2008. However, as per the certificates dated 01.01.2009 issued by the respondent no. 3 (copies whereof have been filed as part of Annexure nos. 6 & 7 respectively to the Writ Petition), the petitioner no. 1 as well as the petitioner no. 2 continued to work up to 30th December 2008 on the post of teacher. It further appears that the respondent no. 3 issued letters, each dated 01.12.2008, to the petitioner no. 1 as well as the petitioner no. 2, inter-alia stating that their respective terms of appointment had come to an end on 09.10.2008 but in case they desired to continue till fresh arrangements were made, they could give their consent on the enclosed consent letters. It is stated by Sri. K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the said letter dated 01.12.2008 the petitioners gave their consent. In the mean-time, it appears that an advertisement dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) was issued by the respondent no. 3 inviting applications for appointment on contractual basis for one year in Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya, Koraon, Allahabad, in respect of various posts mentioned in the said advertisement including the posts of full time teachers/part time teachers. Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners states that pursuant to the said advertisement, the respondent nos. 5 to 12 have been given appointment on the posts of full time teachers/part time teachers in the aforesaid institution. THEreafter, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking reliefs as mentioned above. I have heard Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3, and perused the record. From a perusal of the Writ Petition, it transpires that the aforesaid appointments, on contractual basis for a period of one year, are made under Serve Siksha Abhiyan Scheme, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition. Relevant clauses of the said scheme appearing at pages 72 and 75 of the paper book of the Writ Petition are reproduced below: It is submitted by Sri. K.N.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners that the scheme makes a distinction between the institution run by "Swaikshik Sansthan" and the institution run by "Samiti". It is submitted that the restriction regarding the period of contract being for one year applies only when the appointment is made in an institution run by "Swaikshik Sansthan" under the said scheme, and such restriction is not applicable to the institution in question. I have considered the submissions made by Sri. K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, and I find my-self unable to accept the same. A perusal of various clauses of the scheme reproduced above clearly shows that the contractual appointment, whether made in an institution run by "Swaikshik Sansthan" or in an institution run by "Samiti", will only be for a period of one year. It is evident from the above clauses of the scheme that the teachers are to be appointed on contractual basis, and the period of contract is one year. Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, has not shown any provision in the scheme, entitling a teacher to get renewal after the expiry of contractual period of one year. As noted earlier, the advertisement dated 24.07.2007, pursuant to which the petitioners were appointed, clearly stated that the applications were being invited for appointment on contractual basis for one year. THE appointment letters dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure nos. 6 & 7 to the Writ Petition, respectively) issued to the petitioners, inter-alia clearly stated that the appointment was purely temporary for a period of one year only, and the same would automatically expire on the expiry of the contractual period. In view of the terms and conditions of appointment as also in view of the various clauses of the scheme, as noted above, the appointment of the petitioner no. 1 as well as the appointment of the petitioner no. 2 came to an end on 09.10.2008 automatically. THE letters dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition) were issued to the petitioners, merely seeking their consent to continue till fresh arrangements were made. THE said letters did not contemplate any renewal of the contract of the petitioners. THE submission made by Sri. K.N. Mishra, that the said letters gave option to the petitioners for renewal of their contracts, in my view, cannot be accepted. As regards the continuance of the petitioners till 30th December 2008, it appears that the petitioners continued to work till fresh arrangements were made, as is evident from the perusal of the letters dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition). As noted earlier, Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, has stated that pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition), the respondent nos. 5 to 12 have already been appointed as full time teachers/part time teachers, therefore, there is no occasion for the petitioners to be continued in the aforesaid institution. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. THE Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.