Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 308 (ALL)

DEEPATI v. STATE OF U P

2010-01-25

K.N.PANDEY, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2010
( 1 ) BY the Court.-By a separate order passed today, the writ petition at the instance of Dr. Anju Verma (petitioner No. 2) has been dismissed as withdrawn at this stage. The writ petition is, therefore, being considered only as regards Kumari deepti (petitioner No. 1 ). ( 2 ) WE have heard Sri Ashok Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 3 ) THE petitioner No. 1 has filed the present writ petition making the following prayers: i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the clause-5 sub-clause -1 of Government Order dated 1. 2. 2005 (Annexure No. 01 to this writ petition) so far as it restricts the appointment of the petitioner to a maximum of three years with 15 days break in each year. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as Ad-hoc Lecturers until there is a vacancy of regular Lecturers in the Government Graduate institutions and government Post Graduate institutions. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to replace the petitioner by Ad-hoc appointees. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to continue the petitioner till a regular selection is held for the post of teacher in the institution. v. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directs the respondents to continue the petitioner as Lecturer till the vacancies of Lecturers are existing in the Government Graduate institutions and Government Post graduate institutions. vi. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. vii. Award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner. ( 4 ) FROM the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit by the Order dated 12. 12. 2006 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) on contract basis in Panchayat Raj rajkiya Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Etawah, and joined on 12. 12. 2006. After completion of the first term, the petitioner No. 1 was again permitted to join for the second term. Again, after completion of the second term, the petitioner was permitted to join on 15. 12. 2006 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) on contract basis in Panchayat Raj rajkiya Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Etawah, and joined on 12. 12. 2006. After completion of the first term, the petitioner No. 1 was again permitted to join for the second term. Again, after completion of the second term, the petitioner was permitted to join on 15. 1. 2009. The last term of the petitioner No. 1 has thus expired on 14. 1. 2010. ( 5 ) THE case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the tenure of three years as contemplated in the appointment letter in respect of the petitioner No. 1 has expired on 14. 1. 2010. However, neither the tenure of the petitioner No. 1 been extended nor has the petitioner No. 1 been granted renewal. ( 6 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate for the petitioner No. 1 to make representation before the Director of Higher Education, U. P. , Allahabad (respondent No. 2) seeking explanation/renewal of her tenure. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the stand taken by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved by permitting the petitioner No. 1 to make representation before the Director of Higher Education, u. P. , Allahabad (respondent No. 2) and directing the Director to take appropriate decision on such representation within a specified period. ( 8 ) WE accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: 1. The petitioner No. 1 will submit her representation before the Director of Higher Education, U. P. , Allahabad (respondent No. 2) within a period of four weeks from today alongwith a certified cop of this order. 2. The Director of Higher Education, U. P. , Allahabad (respondent No. 2)will consider the aforesaid representation and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law by passing a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said representation. 3. It is further provided that till the Director of Higher Education, U. P. , allahabad (respondent No. 2) takes a decision, as mentioned above, or till regularly selected candidate joins on the post in question, which ever is earlier, the petitioner No. 1 would be continued as Contract Lecturer, if continuing as on date. 3. It is further provided that till the Director of Higher Education, U. P. , allahabad (respondent No. 2) takes a decision, as mentioned above, or till regularly selected candidate joins on the post in question, which ever is earlier, the petitioner No. 1 would be continued as Contract Lecturer, if continuing as on date. ( 9 ) IT is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case of the petitioner No. 1. .