The Court set aside the non-renewal of the petitioner's contract as contrary to mandatory procedure under a Government Order, directing extension of the contract or fresh orders within two months.
Action of non-renewal set aside with direction to extend contract or pass fresh orders within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8701 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Suneeta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Praveen Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Durga Singh, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis, vide appointment letter dated 6.7.2011, on the post of Teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya. It is contended that the services of the petitioner were governed in terms of the Government Order dated 29.7.2013, wherein it was specifically provided in Clause-8 with regard to the extension of the appointment, which was contractual and it was for a limited period. It is further argued that in terms of said Clause 8, it was incumbent that in the event a decision was being taken for nonextension of the contract, after hearing the parties steps shall be taken for processing the papers before the District Magistrate. It is argued that no such exercise has been carried out in the case of the petitioner.
The petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sadhna Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Service Single No. 1941 of 2021, Judgment dated 28.1.2021 .
Considering the fact that no compliance of the Government Order dated 29.7.2013 is on record and the said exercise is mandatory condition. As the question has already been decided
by this Court in the case of Sadhna Singh (Supra) , the non renewal of the contract of the petitioner is clearly contrary to the Government Order dated 29.7.2013, as such the action insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is set aside with a specific directions to the respondents to extend the contract of the petitioner or to pass fresh orders in terms of the Government Order dated 29.7.2013. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the authority concerned.
The writ petition is disposed off.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated/accepted as certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 3.8.2021 S. Rahman
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the non-renewal of the petitioner's contractual appointment without following the mandatory procedure under the Government Order dated 29.7.2013 is legally valid.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sadhna Singh Vs. State of U.P. and OthersFollowed¶7
Sadhna Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Service Single No. 1941 of 2021, Judgment dated 28.1.2021
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Suneeta
State of U.P.
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
