Subodh Kumar Yadav Vs. District Magistrate/Chairman District Shiksha Samiti and ors.

Subodh Kumar Yadav vs District Magistrate/Chairman District Shiksha Samiti and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Jul 20, 2009

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483320

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/483320
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Jul 20, 2009
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additio...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subodh Kumar Yadav

Respondent

District Magistrate/Chairman District Shiksha Samiti and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 2009(4)AWC3487

Excerpt

- u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - 4. after hearing counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the record, i am of the view that the petitioner's appointment was contractual and was for a period of one year, as such the present writ petition has become infructuous for the reason the petitioner cannot be given continuance by the high court now almost after five years particularly when his appointment on contract basis was for a period of one year.orderrakesh tiwari, j.1. heard counsel for the petitioner, sri ravi shanker prasad for the respondents and perused the record.2. the petitioner was appointed as shiksha mitra on 2.8.2002 in village jagir, post and block sheohara, dhampur, bijnor. services of shiksha mitra are contractual in nature and shiksha mitra is appointed for a period of one year according to contract. the petitioner was reappointed as shiksha mitra for the year 2003 and thereafter his appointment was cancelled by resolution dated 30.6.2003 appended as annexure-3 to the writ petition. he was again appointed on that post for the year 2003-04. it appears that a complaint was made against appointment of the petitioner on the ground that post of shiksha mitra in the village was reserved for o.b.c. (woman) and appointment of the petitioner who was a scheduled caste candidate was not in accordance with the rules. the petitioner claims that he was a backward class candidate and therefore there was no illegality in his appointment.3. counsel for the respondents submits that appointment of shiksha mitra is only for a period of one year and if for some reason there is any illegality in the termination, he can claim damages in the civil court but his services cannot be continued beyond the period of contract of one year unless it is provided in the contract of appointment.4. after hearing counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the record, i am of the view that the petitioner's appointment was contractual and was for a period of one year, as such the present writ petition has become infructuous for the reason the petitioner cannot be given continuance by the high court now almost after five years particularly when his appointment on contract basis was for a period of one year.5. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Rakesh Tiwari, J.

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Shanker Prasad for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 2.8.2002 in village Jagir, Post and Block Sheohara, Dhampur, Bijnor. Services of Shiksha Mitra are contractual in nature and Shiksha Mitra is appointed for a period of one year according to contract. The petitioner was reappointed as Shiksha Mitra for the year 2003 and thereafter his appointment was cancelled by resolution dated 30.6.2003 appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He was again appointed on that post for the year 2003-04. It appears that a complaint was made against appointment of the petitioner on the ground that post of Shiksha Mitra in the village was reserved for O.B.C. (woman) and appointment of the petitioner who was a Scheduled Caste candidate was not in accordance with the Rules. The petitioner claims that he was a Backward Class candidate and therefore there was no illegality in his appointment.

3. Counsel for the respondents submits that appointment of Shiksha Mitra is only for a period of one year and if for some reason there is any illegality in the termination, he can claim damages in the civil court but his services cannot be continued beyond the period of contract of one year unless it is provided in the contract of appointment.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the record, I am of the view that the petitioner's appointment was contractual and was for a period of one year, as such the present writ petition has become infructuous for the reason the petitioner cannot be given continuance by the High Court now almost after five years particularly when his appointment on contract basis was for a period of one year.

5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2009 Same Parties Subodh Kumar Yadav vs District Magistrate/Chairman District S... Same Subject Service Same Judge Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Service