Smt. Sunayana Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Govt. Lko and 5 Others

1. Heard Shrawan Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 3 & 4, Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Sri Net Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.

¶11

2. Under challenge is the order dated 31.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the contractual services of the petitioner have been dispensed with. Also under challenge is a decision dated 25.07.2024 taken by the Chairman of District Level Committee and the approval dated 26.07.2024 given by the respondent No.3.

¶12

3. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the

¶13

petitioner is that the petitioner has been working as a Warden-cum-Assistant Teacher since 19.08.2011 in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Nakha, District Lakhimpur Kheri on contract basis, renewable every year.

¶14

4. By means of the order impugned dated 31.07.2024, the contractual services of the petitioner have been dispensed with.

¶15

5. Hence this petition.

¶16

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that all along the services of the petitioner have been commended and appreciated, as is evident from a perusal of the recommendation certificates dated 06.05.2023, 24.04.2024, and 03.07.2024, copies of which are annexures-7, 9, and 10 to the petition, respectively.

¶17

7. His further submission with vehemence is that without appreciating the aforesaid appreciation letters, the contractual services of the petitioners have been dispensed with.

¶18

8. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner are governed by the Government Order dated 11.12.2020, a copy of which is annexure-ASA-2 to the additional supplementary affidavit dated 21.08.2024, which categorically provides, with regard to Naveen Samvida (new contracts), that in case a person is found incompetent, his services can be terminated by giving

¶19

one month's notice. It is also contended that no notice had been issued to the petitioner prior to termination of services and, hence, the termination order of the petitioner would run contrary to the Government Order dated 11.12.2020 and, as such, the same may be quashed on this ground alone.

¶20

9. To buttress his aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swati Priyadarshini vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2024 INSC 620.

¶21

10. No other ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

11. On the other hand, Sri Net Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, has argued that an inspection was conducted in the room of the petitioner, and the report whereof was submitted on 16.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure-SSCA-1 to the supplementary short counter affidavit dated 17.10.2024. From the said report, it emerged that the items meant for distribution to the students were found kept in three sacks and two bags. Upon examining the said items, it was found that it belonged to the students and was meant for distribution and there was no occasion for the petitioner to have kept such items with herself. This circumstance weighed with the Committee, which, vide its report dated 26.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure-CA-1 to the detailed counter affidavit dated 24.01.2025, recommended not to renew the contractual services of

¶23

the petitioner and to dispense with the same. As such, no error has been occasioned in dispensing with the services of the petitioner.

¶24

12. As regards the Government Order dated 11.12.2020, Sri Net Ram, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, has indicated that the said Government Order also provides that, in case of serious charges, financial irregularities, or extreme indiscipline, the services of a contractual employee can be terminated after prior approval of the District Magistrate, which, in fact, has been done in the instant case.

¶25

13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶26

14. From the arguments as raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and a perusal of records, it emerges that the contractual services of the petitioner, while working as a Warden-cum-Assistant Teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, have been dispensed with vide the order impugned dated 31.07.2024.

¶27

15. From the perusal of records, it emerges that an inspection was conducted and a report dated 16.07.2024 was submitted, from which it emerged that various items meant for distribution to the students were kept in three large sacks and two bags in the room of the petitioner. The said items were meant for distribution to the students but, strangely, were found

¶28

concealed in the room of the petitioner.

¶29

16. An attempt has been made orally by learned counsel for the petitioner to justify the keeping of the said items in the room of the petitioner by indicating that, obviously, the same were meant for distribution to the students; however, no reason has emerged as to why the said commodities/ items were not distributed to the students. The complete list of the said items has also been annexed with the report dated 16.07.2024, which indicates that a large number of biscuits, shampoo sachets, steel scrubbers, etc., were all kept concealed in the room of the petitioner.

¶30

17. Considering the aforesaid inspection report, the committee, vide its report dated 26.07.2024, decided not to extend the contractual services of the petitioner, which had already come to an end, and took a decision to dispense with the services of the petitioner.

¶31

18. The dispensation of the services had been occasioned after approval from the District Magistrate.

¶32

19. The Government Order dated 11.12.2020 provides that, in case the services of a contractual employee are found to be unsuitable, the services can be dispensed with after one month's notice. However, the said Government Order also provides that in cases of financial irregularity or serious misconduct, the services can be dispensed with after approval from the District Magistrate.

¶33

20. As already indicated above, from the inspection

¶34

report dated 16.07.2024, various items meant for distribution to the students were found concealed in sacks and bags in the room of the petitioner, without any justification as to why the said commodities had not been distributed. Thus, the concealment of the said commodities in the room of the petitioner has been treated as serious irregularity on the part of the petitioner, which prevailed upon the respondents in not extending the contractual services of the petitioner and in dispensing with the services.

¶35

21. The Government Order dated 11.12.2020 itself provides for adopting the aforesaid procedure, which in fact has correctly been adopted by the respondents while passing the order impugned dated 31.07.2024.

¶36

22. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swati Priyadarshini (supra) is concerned, the same may not have any applicability in the instant case as here it is not a case of termination of the contractual services; rather, the contractual services of the petitioner have not been extended beyond 31.03.2024, and the respondents, through their committee dated 26.07.2024, have taken a conscious decision of not extending the contractual services of the petitioner.

¶37

23. Even otherwise, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned particularly when serious irregularities have emerged in the inspection which has been carried out by the respondents, as already detailed above, to which there is no denial in

¶38

either the writ petition or various supplementary affidavits filed by the petitioner or even in the rejoinder affidavit. Therefore, there does not appear to be any occasion for extending the contractual services of the petitioner or for continuing the petitioner in service, more particularly when the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with in accordance with the Government Order dated 11.12.2020, which incidentally has not been challenged before this Court while filing the instant petition.

¶39

24. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the threeJudges' judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and others, (1980) 4 SCC 379 , wherein it has been held that where, on admitted or undisputable facts, only one conclusion is possible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice because the Courts do not issue futile writs. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶40

"................As we said earlier where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs."

¶41

25. The aforesaid judgment has also been relied upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. J.

¶42

Shashidhara Prasad vs. Governor of Karnataka and another , AIR 1999 SC 849 .

¶43

26 . As already indicated above, serious irregularities have emerged against the petitioner, a Warden of a school, pertaining to various items meant for distribution to the students being kept concealed in three sacks and two bags in a room. No reason or explanation has come forth from the petitioner as to why the said items were kept concealed by her in the bags and not distributed to the students.

¶44

27. Learned counsel for the petitioner had orally justified the keeping of items by contending that the same was meant for distribution to the students, without in fact explaining as to why the same were not distributed, and thus the very conduct of the petitioner, as already observed by the respondents, does not entail any interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

28. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶46

[Abdul Moin, J.]

¶47

Order Date :- 28.7.2025 cks/-

¶48

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

Smt. Sunayana Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Govt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunayana Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Govt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajai Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Secondary Edu. and Ors.

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 3 Others

Varsha Singh Vs Gen. Manager Human Resource Management Deptt. Indian Overseas Bank Chennai and 2 Others

Ram Nivas Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Civil Sectt. Lko and 3OTHERS

Dr. Ankit Gupta (Assistant Professor) Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Nirman Bhawan New Delhi and 7 Others

Pushpavati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Shiksha U.P. Lko. and Another