By The Court— As there is no objection from the respondents to the application for condonation of delay being allowed, it is hereby allowed. Thus the period of delay as pointed out by the Registry is condoned. 2. We have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the pleadings of Special Appeal and impugned judgments passed in Writ Petition as well as in review. 3. This Special Appeal arises out of judgment and orders dated 28.8.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.4496 (S/S) of 2012 and dated 2.1.2013 in Review Petition Defective No.513 of 2012. 4. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this Special Appeal are that appellant no.1 was appointed on 24.7.2006 by the Raj Pariyojana Nideshak U.P., Lucknow (State Project Director U.P. Lucknow) as 'Warden' in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (Residential) Kopaganj. It was for a period of one year extendable for further period if services were found satisfactory. The work and conduct of the appellant were found exemplary by the senior functionaries and, therefore, her terms were extended from year to year and lastly upto 31.5.2012, vide the order dated 2nd July 2011. Despite the excellent and unblemished services rendered by the appellants and despite the services having been found by the appointing authority to its entire satisfaction, the term was not extended for the academic session 2012-13. Appellant no. 2 was also appointed on contract basis as part time teacher to teach 'Maths' by Raj Pariyojana Nideshak, U.P. Lucknow. He rendered satisfactory and unblemished services and his terms were extended from 2007 periodically and the last being on 2.7.2011 upto 31st May, 2012 by the appointing authority vide the letter dated 2.7.2011. Now the appellants are aggrieved that their terms have not been extended for the academic session 2012-13 despite satisfactory services: 5. It is also pleaded .that the appellants were working with utmost sincerity, full commitment and devotion to their duties ensuring that tile goals set forth in the scheme fructified and were accomplished in toto. They have always been taking care and exercising full caution and vigil to improve the standard and area of education qualitatively and extensively, both, particularly in respect of the inmates of the residential school. The work and conduct of the appellants were appreciated by the superior officers, students and guardians alike. They have always been taking care and exercising full caution and vigil to improve the standard and area of education qualitatively and extensively, both, particularly in respect of the inmates of the residential school. The work and conduct of the appellants were appreciated by the superior officers, students and guardians alike. However, they were shocked to know that their terms were not extended and renewed for the academic session 2012-13. They made representation on 26.6.2012 to respondent no.2 to consider their cases and renew the terms but the same was not considered by the authority. On the contrary an advertisement was issued by respondent no.2 and candidates have also been selected for replacing the appellants. 6. It is contended that a Division Bench of this High Court has already settled issue relating to the renewal of the continuing term of teachers like the appellants in the judgment in the case of Pramode Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P.& others.[2008(26) LCD 682]. Paragraph 14 of the judgment reads as: "It is a cardinal principle of law that if a person has been appointed for one academic session, if the said post is to continue and work is to continue and the work is to be taken for the same purpose in the same institution or school, such a person cannot be replaced by another person who is to be appointed again for one academic session nor can he be asked to leave for giving way to another fresh appointment." 7. It is also pleaded that a some what similar view was taken also by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sabha Bahadur Varma v. State of U.P.& others.[2008(26) LCD 664]. This view was further reiterated in the case of Ashish Dixit and 11 others v. Union of India and others[Writ Petition No.1348 (SB) of 2012]. And an Special Leave Petition filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed while upholding the judgment of this Court. The relevant paragraph of judgment reads as : "The petitioners are B.D.S. Doctors and they are appointed under NRHM Scheme on the fund provided by the Government of India. And an Special Leave Petition filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed while upholding the judgment of this Court. The relevant paragraph of judgment reads as : "The petitioners are B.D.S. Doctors and they are appointed under NRHM Scheme on the fund provided by the Government of India. Earlier two writ petitions were filed in this court bearing No. 1984 (S/B) of 2011 and 2014 (S/B) of 2011 decided on 9.12.2011 whereby a Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to renew the services and also accommodate them. Attention of this Court has been invited to the judgment and order dated 8.7.2011, 'passed by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J) was a member in writ petition no.769 of 2011 whereby it has been held that once the Government of India provides fund for recruitment of doctors and other staff, then it shall be incumbent on the State Government to continue with the Scheme and appoint the incumbents and also renew their services. The Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents against judgment and order dated 8.7.2011 has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment and order dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure-25). While dismissing the SLP their Lordships have not found any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. In view of above, there appears to be no reason on the part of the State Government not to renew the services of existing doctors working under NRHM Scheme, of course, subject to their satisfactory work. Freshers may be appointed only in case the services of the persons who are already appointed and working is not satisfactory. The Mission Director vide his letter dated 27.7.2012 contained in Annexure No.18 to the writ petition also seems to have directed that the persons who are working may be permitted to continue and no advertisement should be issued.............." 8. Learned counsel for appellants also referred to a latest circular issued by the Government of U.P. dated 12.2.2013. The relevant portion of the circular which is in Hindi is reproduced as under: @ Hindi @ 9. Learned counsel for appellants also referred to a latest circular issued by the Government of U.P. dated 12.2.2013. The relevant portion of the circular which is in Hindi is reproduced as under: @ Hindi @ 9. As there are the judgments of High Courts and that of Supreme Court in support of the claim of appellants and thereafter since the Government of U.P. has also issued the above mentioned circular, we are of the considered view that the Judgments and Orders impugned herein cannot be sustained. 10. Thus we set aside both the impugned Judgments and orders and direct the official respondents to consider the case of appellants afresh within a time frame of four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this Order. 11. This Special Appeal is, thus, disposed of. _____________