Dismissed

Pankaj Kumar v. the Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs Development New Delhi and 6 Others

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2024WRIA/1318/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Guest Physical Training Instructor. The court held the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner's contract had expired and was never renewed without a valid clause for continuation.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition is dismissed for lack of maintainability. Parties to bear their own cost.

Pankaj Kumar vs the Union of India Thru. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15299

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1318 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- The Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Tribal Affairs Development New Delhi And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Daya Shankar Yadav

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Somesh Tripathi

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Ambrish Roy learned counsel for opposite party No.1, Mr. Somesh Tripathi learned counsel for opposite parties 2,3 and 8 and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 4,5 and 6. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party No.7 stand dispensed with.

¶9

Petition has been filed challenging notice dated 22nd January, 2024 whereby list of selected candidates for filling up teaching and non teaching vacant positions in the E.M.R.S. across the States has been issued. Further prayer has been made seeking a direction to opposite parties to treat petitioner as a regular employee on the basis of order dated 30th September, 2022.

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition in view of the fact that as per the appointment letter dated 24th November, 2022 issued to petitioner is concerned, petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as Guest Physical Training Instructor only up till 31st March, 2023 with such contract never having been renewed and therefore the petition is not maintainable at his behest.

¶11

It has also been submitted that petitioner also participated in the examination conducted by National Education Society of tribal students on 16th, 17th, 23rd and 24th December, 2023 for filling up the aforesaid positions in which he was not selected and thereafter has filed this petition.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner however submits that although petitioner was initially appointed on contractual basis till 31st March, 2023 but his services were thereafter extended by

¶13

opposite parties and therefore there was no vacancy in accordance with order dated 30th September, 2022 due to which selection has been wrongly made for the post which is being held by petitioner.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident from appointment letter dated 24th November, 2022 that petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis as Guest Physical Training Instructor and his term of contract expired on 31st March, 2023. There is no document brought on record to indicate renewal of his contract. Even otherwise, the appointment letter does not indicate any clause for renewal of services.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of instructions has also admitted that he participated in the aforesaid examination but did not succeed whereafter present petition has been filed.

¶16

Clearly the aforesaid twin reasons make it evident that petitioner does not have any right to maintain this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.2.2024 prabhat

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Kumar v. the Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs Development New Delhi and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar v. the Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs Development New Delhi and 6 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Priyanka Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Shivanshi Singh Vs Cenral Board of Secondary Education Thru. Its Regional Officer and Another

Amrul Nisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Ravindra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. and Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Vs the Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs Development New Delhi and 6 Others

Ram Dhiraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agricultural Edu. and Research Lko. and 3 Others