JAI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. M. Sahai, J. The petitioners were appointed as Bachat Pracharak under orders of the respondents for a period of one year to carry out the scheme of savings. The appointment of the petitioners as per the term of contract was to end on the expiry of the period of one year. The petitioners' claim that they were ap pointed in 1986 and were continued even without any agreement. The services of the petitioners were terminated in 1990 on the ground that the petitioners did not ex ecute the agreement which, under the scheme, was required to he executed by them. The petitioners challenged the ter mination orders passed by the respon dents by means of the instant writ petition. This Court also passed a stay order in favour of the petitioners and according to the petitioners they are continuing in ser vice in pursuance of the stay order.

(2.) HEARD Sri Vijay Sinha holding brief of Sri V. B. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. P. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently argued that the appointment of the petitioners was under a scheme, which was for a fixed term. Such appoin tees do not acquire any right nor can they claim regularisation. He further argued that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and even if the petitioners continued under the stay order passed by this Court, this will not create any right in their favour. It is not disputed by the petitioners that they were appointed under a scheme and their appointment, as per the terms of contract, was for a fixed period of one year.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners finally argued that in case the Scheme is continuing the petitioners may be considered for re-engagement by the respondents. In case Bachat Pracharak scheme is still continuing in the State of U. P. and the respondents are engaging Bachat Pracharak then the claim of the petitioners may also be considered by the respondents for engagement under the Scheme for which the petitioners shall ex ecute agreement as required by the respondents.