Dr. Neeraj Gupta Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Farmer Welfare New Delhi and 5 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19591-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 123 of 2025

Appellant :- Dr. Neeraj Gupta Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Animal Husbandry And Farmer Welfare New Delhi And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Asthana, Ujjwal Kirti Bisen

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Abhinav Trivedi, Ashwani Kumar Singh, C.S.C., Upendra Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Piyush Asthana, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 and Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶9

2. Without adverting to the question as to whether a writ petition would be maintainable against U.P. Livestock Development Board or not, it remains open to be answered in an appropriate proceeding.

¶10

3. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment/ order dated 10.03.2025 rendered in Writ-A No.2636 of 2025 titled Dr.

¶11

Neeraj Gupta vs. Union of India and others , whereby the writ petition assailing the order dated 25.02.2025 as modified by order dated 07.03.2025 has been rejected.

¶12

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed for a term of two years by order dated 29.11.2022 and on completion of the aforesaid term, the Board of Directors considered the extension of the fixed term appointment and by order dated 29.11.2024, the appointment was extended until further orders or six months whichever was earlier. It is to be noted that at the time of grant of extension, the fresh selection was in progress, regarding which, an advertisement was issued on 21.10.2024. The appellant was also an applicant in response to the advertisement. While the selection process was in progress, an order dated 25.02.2025 came to be passed, whereby the services of the appellant, which were made for a period of six months or extended until further orders were dispensed with. Since the order dated 25.02.2025 attributed some lapses on the part of the appellant, therefore, the said order came to be challenged before this Court in Writ-A No.2636 of 2025 . Soon after filing of the aforesaid writ petition arising out of the order dated 25.02.2025, the order so passed was modified on 07.03.2025, thereby the stigmatic part of the order dated 25.02.2025 was expunged and the discontinuation of the appellant's service was termed to be not required. The stigma

¶13

attached, if any, was, thus, removed. Having regard to the expunction of stigmatic part of the order and the appointment itself being contractual that too, for a fixed term, this Court, having regard to the very nature of appointment, found that the appellant/ petitioner could not claim his rights of continuity in service beyond what was protected under the conditions of appointment. The writ petition filed by the petitioner not being found to have raised any valid ground was, thus, rejected. Soon after the rejection of writ petition by the Writ Court, it appears that the selection, which was in progress, was also completed and an appointment of a selected candidate was made on 12.03.2025.

¶14

5. The fresh order of appointment issued on 12.03.2025 also seems to be a subject matter of contest between the appellant and the employer in Writ-A No.2892 of 2025 titled Dr. Neeraj Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others . The fresh appointment made has been provided to be subject to the outcome of Writ-A No.2892 of 2025 on 11.03.2025. This writ petition filed by the petitioner on the other hand regarding his contractual appointment was dismissed on 10.03.2025 giving rise to the present intra-court appeal.

¶15

6. The appellant, on the one hand, is contesting the cause of contractual appointment, regarding which, his right of continuity beyond the scope of contract has been disapproved by this Court vide

¶16

order dated 10.03.2025 impugned herein, and on the other hand, he is also in litigation against the regular appointment, which has been finalized with the issuance of order dated 12.03.2025 in favour of some third party, who has not been impleaded as a respondent in the pending writ petition registered as Writ-A No.2892 of 2025 .

¶17

7. Confining the scope of the present appeal to the order dated 25.02.2025, as modified on 07.03.2025, we are of the considered opinion that the said appointment, being a fixed-term appointment in favor of the petitioner, has certainly come to an end with the fresh appointment made by the competent authority. The grounds urged before us are unconvincing as the very terms of appointment approved by the Board were for a period of six months or till further orders. Once the fresh selection was finalized, the discontinuation of the existing incumbent would be a natural consequence not open to be doubted on fragile motives or attributes.

¶18

8. The appeal bereft of any merit is, accordingly, rejected .

¶19

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 cks/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Neeraj Gupta v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Farmer Welfare New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Neeraj Gupta v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Farmer Welfare New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aryan Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

M/S Sadana Electrical Store Lko. Thru. Its Partner Sri Rajesh Sadana Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court Lko. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Rai Vs Union of India Thru. General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi and 2 Others

Smt. Gurdeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Lko. and 3 Others

Lalmani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others