Dismissed

Dr. Keshav Kumar v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2022WRIA/2328/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal to extend the term of appointment of a contractual associate professor. The petitioner, appointed for one year, retired before turning 70. The court held no Government Order mandated continuation of service after the term expired, thus no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner flat rejected and writ petition dismissed.

Dr. Keshav Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2328 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Keshav Kumar Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

Instructions filed today be kept on record.

¶6

The petitioner was appointed as a Contractual Associate Professor on 2.12.2019 (for a period of one year). It was also provided in the order that if the petitioner attained the age of 70 years before the completion of one year then he would retired at the age of 70 years. When the petitioner was retired after the completion of one year, he approached the High Court by means of a writ petition being Writ - A No. 9648 of 2020 (Dr. Keshav Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Others) wherein a direction was issued that the petitioner could represent for continuing till the age of 70 years. His representation would be considered in view of the Govt. Orders dated 7.6.2010, 13.09.2013 and the recommendation dated 25.09.2019. When the petitioner filed a representation before the Additional Chief Secretary (Medical Education) State of U.P., Lucknow, the representation was decided on 18.01.2021 after considering all the Govt. Orders. It has been stated in the order impugned that no Govt. Order applied to the petitioner's case for extension of age.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel has taken instructions and has informed the Court that the term of the appointment of the petitioner expired on 3.12.2020 i.e. after the completion of

¶8

one year of his appointment. The Court has also gone through the Govt. Orders which were placed before the Court by the petitioner. No Govt. Order is to the effect that the petitioner was to continue even after completion of the one year of appointment.

¶9

Under such circumstances, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶10

Order Date :- 9.3.2022 vkj

¶11

Digitally signed by VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL Date: 2022.03.15 17:48:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Keshav Kumar v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Keshav Kumar v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imam Hussain Siddiqui Vs State of U.. and 3 Others

Umesh Chand Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hriday Narayan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs State of U P and 2 Others