High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Upendra Singh & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. (Basic) & Others - WRIT - A No. 6903 of 2003  RD-AH 3634 (27 September 2005)
Writ Petition No.6903 of 2003
Upendra Singh and another...........................................Petitioners
State of U.P. and others..............................................Respondents.
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
For better advancement of education in the rural areas, the State Government formulated a scheme. To achieve the objects specified in the scheme, a Board was formed which was chaired by the District Magistrate for making appointments of the staff. This scheme was for a limited period and accordingly appointments were made for a limited period which could be extended with the approval of the District Magistrate, but such extension could not be extended beyond the period of the scheme.
It transpires, that the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1993 as a class IV employee and the term was extended from time to time. By a Government Order dated 2.3.98, the scheme was to continue till 31.3.2003 whereafter, the post would be transferred to the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Based on the aforesaid order, it transpires that the petitioner's were given a fresh appointment on the post of Chowkidar on a contract basis. It transpires that the petitioners filed writ petition No.20224 of 2002 which was disposed of by an order dated 15.5.2002 directing the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari to decide their representation. Based on the aforesaid directions, respondent No.4 decided the representation of the petitioners by an order dated 30.9.2002.
By the said order, respondent No.4 allowed the representation to the extent that the petitioners were liable to be paid the salary for the period, the petitioners had worked on a contract basis. The authority further held that the appointment letter indicated that the petitioners were appointed on a contract basis, but no time limit was fixed in their appointment letter and on the other hand appointments under the scheme was to continue only till the existence of the scheme. Since, no time limit was fixed in the appointment letter, the respondent No.4 cancelled the appointments of the petitioners
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order of the respondent No.4 in so far as it relates to the cancellation of their appointments.
Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioners were made on a contract basis which was in consonance with the scheme. Since the scheme was confined to a limited period, consequently the appointment of the petitioners could only be given for a limited period. In my opinion, the authority committed an error in cancelling their appointments and should have confined their appointments for a limited period. However, at this stage, nothing can be done, as the Scheme came to an end on 31.3.2003 and has not been extended. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
However, since the Government Order dated 2.3.98 indicates that the post would be transferred to the Basic Shiksha Parishad, accordingly, I direct that the petitioners may approach the authority and in the event the post is existing and is available, the authority may consider the petitioners' case sympathetically.
Writ Petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
Dated: 27th Sept, 2005
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.