Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 923 (ALL)

UPASANA SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-04-17

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, RAKESH TIWARI

body2012
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma,J.: Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since the facts and reliefs prayed for in these writ petitions are the same, hence they are being decided by a common judgment. Brief facts in both these writ petitions are that respondent nos. 2 and 3 invited applications vide an advertisement for appointment of lecturers on contract basis in the department of Chemistry in Veer Bahadur Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. Pursuant thereto, the petiioners being qualified and eligible candidates applied for the said post and after walk-in-interview they were appointed on the post of lecturers on contract basis in Chemistry department vide appointment letters dated 10/13.7.2006 from July, 2006 to 16th June, 2007 for a period of 11 months only. It is averred that respondent nos. 2 and 3 again invited applications for the post in question as per advertisement dated 18.10.2006 while the petitioners are already working on the said post. Aggrieved by the advetisement dated 18.10.2006, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions praying for the following reliefs. " i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to make interference in the functioning of the petitioners as lecturers of Chemistry in the department of Chemistry in the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur till the regular selection made by the respondents; ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dated 18.10.2006 published in 'Dainik Jagaran' Newspaper ( Annexure-1 of this writ petition) with respect of Chemistry department ; iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; iv ) To award the cost of the petition to the petitioners." No interim order was granted in Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 7575 of 2007, Km. Upasana Singh versus State of U.P. and others at the time of admission. However, in connected Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2834 of 2007, Rashmi Tripathi versus State of U.P. and others following order was passed on 17.1.2007. "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made his submission that although the petitioner is working on contract basis but an advertisement has been made for the purpose of contractual appointment on the basis of interview. However, in connected Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2834 of 2007, Rashmi Tripathi versus State of U.P. and others following order was passed on 17.1.2007. "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made his submission that although the petitioner is working on contract basis but an advertisement has been made for the purpose of contractual appointment on the basis of interview. He contended that in view of the several orders passed by this Court as well as Apex Court, an adhoc or contractual employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc or contractual employee but by regular employee. Learned Standing counsel contended before this Court that the ad-hoc and contractual appointment cannot be placed identially. We are of the view, this gives rise to further consideration of the cause on the basis of exchange of affidavits. Counter affidavit will be filed by 5th February,2007. Rejoinder, if any, will be filed by 12th February, 2007. The matter will appear on 14th February, 2007. However, no effect or further effect of the advertisement will be given until and unless further order/s is/are passed by this Court." Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents inviting fresh applications pursaunt to advertisement dated 18.10.2006 for appointment on the post of lecturers on contract basis in Chemistry Department at the end of academic session is arbitrary and void as the petitioners are already working and their works were satisfactory, therefore, there is no justification for the respondents for inviting fresh applications replacing the petitioners by another set of adhoc appointees. Per contra, learned Standing counsel submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of lecturers on contract bais in Chemistry Department vide appointment letters dated 10/13.7.2006 from July, 2006 to 16th June, 2007 i.e. for a specific period of 11 months. He contends that adhoc and contractual appointment cannot be placed identically. The appointments of the petitioners were contractual in nature and when the period of contract of their appointments had come to an end the respondents invited fresh application vide advertisement dated 18.10.2006, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents in advertising the vacancy again. The appointments of the petitioners were contractual in nature and when the period of contract of their appointments had come to an end the respondents invited fresh application vide advertisement dated 18.10.2006, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents in advertising the vacancy again. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is apparent that the petitioners had been appointed only for a specific period of 11 months from July 17, 2006 to June 16,2007 on honorarium on the post of Lecturer on contract basis in the Department of Chemistry in the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur on the basis of their performance in the walk-in-interview held on 17.5.2006. Their appointment was made effective from the date of joining up to June 16,2007. Their contract with regard to appoinment on the post of lecturers having come to an end, they are not entitled to relief of continuing in service in the facts and circumstances of this case. The respondents have not committed any illegality in inviting fresh applications pursuant to advertisement dated 18.10.2006. For the reasons stated above, both these writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.