Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGDISH NARAIN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagdish Narain Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 40369 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 3770 (30 September 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.38

CIVIL MISC.WRIT PETITION NO.40369 OF 2002

Jagdish Narain Singh vs. State of U.P. and others

___  

Hon'ble Dr.B.S.Chauhan,J.

Hon'ble Ghanshyam Dass,J.

This writ petition has been filed for seeking a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue as a lecturer till the regular selected candidates are made available by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that the petitioner had been appointed on 30.8.2001 for a period of one academic year 2001-2002 or till the regular selected candidates are made available by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission whichever is earlier.  The  tenure of posting of the petitioner is  over. He has filed the  petition seeking a direction  that he should be allowed to continue till the regular selected candidates are made available by the Commission.

It is settled legal proposition that the services of a temporary employee are governed by the terms and conditions incorporated in his appointment letter and there can be no justification not to enforce the said conditions. (Vide State of Punjab Vs. Surinder Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1593). Petitioner had been appointed for a fixed tenure, i.e., upto a maximum period of six months. A person holding the tenure post is not to be removed nor his services are required to be terminated for the simple reason that his services stand terminated automatically by efflux of time and a person so appointed on a tenure post cannot claim a right to continue to hold the post. (Vide Director, Institute of Management, U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivastava, (1992) 4 SCC 33; and State of U.P. Vs. Dr. S.K.Sinha, 1995 (Supp) 4 SCCF 456).

Thus in view of the above as the petitioner had been appointed for a fixed tenure which is over. Extending the period by this Court would amount to varying the term of contract which is not permissible in law.  

The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

9.4.2003

RK/AKS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.