Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shiv Saha v. Principal Narayan Arya Kanya Snakotar Mahavidyalaya & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 18013 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 5563 (10 November 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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.    18013            of 2002

Shiv Sahai................................................................Petitioner


State of U.P. and others........................................Respondents.


Hon.Tarun Agarwala,J.

 Heard Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Agarwal holding brief of Sri Kshitij Shailendra for respondent no.1 and Sri Neeraj Tripathi for respondent nos.4 and 5 and the Standing Counsel for respondent No3.

The petitioner was appointed as a peon in the institution on a contract basis for a period of one year on an adhoc basis by an order dated 14.3.2001. The appointment order clearly indicated that the term of the appointment would be for a period of one year and that he would be paid remuneration of Rs.1500/- per month and that his services could be terminate at any point of time by giving one month's notice and that in any case he would not be entitled to claim a permanent appointment on the post in question. Upon the completion of the period of one year, the Management extended his services for 45 days by an order dated 13.3.2002. By an order dated 19.4.2002 the petitioner was intimated that his services would come to an end on the expiry of the period, i.e., w.e.f. 1.5.2002. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the post is still continuing and that the work is required by the educational institution and, therefore, he should be allowed to continue in service.

In my opinion, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. The appointment letter clearly indicates that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a limited period and his services has come to an end automatically by efflux of time upon the completion of the period. The appointment order further indicates that the petitioner was not entitled to make any claim on the post in question.

In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner having been appointed on a contract basis for a specified period is not entitled for any relief. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Dated: 10.11.2005



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


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 |

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