Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Pradeep Kumar Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi and anr.

Pradeep Kumar vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi and anr.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Nov 30, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483773

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 35856 of 2001
Subject
Service
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

Service - appointment letter - Article 226 of Constitution of India - petitioner seeking writ ordering respondents to allow him to work as teacher with all benefits - letter of appointment provides for contractual appointment - petitioner does not become entitled to any right to post as such - writ cannot be granted...

Key legal issue
Service
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pradeep Kumar

Advocate Neeraj Pandey, Adv.

Respondent

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi and anr.

Advocate Vinod Swaroop, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
2002(1)AWC255; [2002(92)FLR785]; (2002)1UPLBEC719

Excerpt

service - appointment letter - article 226 of constitution of india - petitioner seeking writ ordering respondents to allow him to work as teacher with all benefits - letter of appointment provides for contractual appointment - petitioner does not become entitled to any right to post as such - writ cannot be granted. - 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].anjani kumar, j.1. heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and sri vinod swaroop, learned counsel representing the respondents.2. petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner for working as computer teacher in the institution and pay salary according to the term and condition of the appointment letter dated 16.9.2000, annexure-1 to the writ petition. the clause (3) of the aforesaid appointment letter dated 16.9.2000 is reproduced below :'(3) it is abundantly made clear that the assignment is purely of day-to-day nature and confers no right of appointment or your placement in the cadre of teachers. your service will be utilised on the day-to-day basis depending upon the need and payment, therefore, will be made accordingly.'3. a perusal of the appointment letter dated 16.9.2000 particularly clause (3), referred to above, demonstrates that petitioner's appointment was purely contractual appointment on day-to-day basis and was liable to be terminated at any time and it will not confer any right upon the petitioner. in these circumstances, the mandamus prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be granted. the writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

Anjani Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Vinod Swaroop, learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. Petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner for working as computer teacher in the institution and pay salary according to the term and condition of the appointment letter dated 16.9.2000, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The clause (3) of the aforesaid appointment letter dated 16.9.2000 is reproduced below :

'(3) it is abundantly made clear that the assignment is purely of day-to-day nature and confers no right of appointment or your placement in the cadre of teachers. Your service will be utilised on the day-to-day basis depending upon the need and payment, therefore, will be made accordingly.'

3. A perusal of the appointment letter dated 16.9.2000 particularly clause (3), referred to above, demonstrates that petitioner's appointment was purely contractual appointment on day-to-day basis and was liable to be terminated at any time and it will not confer any right upon the petitioner. In these circumstances, the mandamus prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial