Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. Sri Durga Singh, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent and Sri Santosh Kumar for the respondent no. 2.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned order dated 3.3.2021 passed by the second respondent whereby renewal of the engagement of the petitioner on the post of fulltime warden cum teacher has been declined as well as the order dated 28.2.2021 passed by the second respondent. With a further request commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for renewal of her engagement in Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya, Dadraul, District Shahjahanpur as fulltime warden cum teacher .
Identical issues have been raised in bunch of the matters leading WRIT - A No. - 4845 of 2021 Suneeta Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others, wherein, individual writ petitions were considered and decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 12.8.2021 inclusive of Writ - A No. 4845 of 2021. The present matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Writ - A No. 4845 of 2021. For ready reference, the relevant part of order dated 12.8.2021 passed in Writ - A No. 4845 of 2021 is reproduced herein below.
".............(I) Writ A. No. 4845 of 2021 Undisputedly the petitioner was selected and appointed based on her being qualified to teach the subject of Home Science. That subject as noted above is no longer in the list of compulsory subjects and has been merged with Art, Music and Craft. In terms of the provisions made in the various executive orders and directives issued from time to time, the aforementioned subject is to be taught by a part time teacher. Although the contract of the petitioner was initially renewed permitting her to teach Hindi, the same came to be terminated in light of the directive of the State Director dated 26 August 2020 restraining the continuance of teachers by permitting change in subject. Neither the aforesaid directive nor the primary policy documents of 14 July 2020 and 11 December 2020 are assailed by the petitioner. The Court does not find a semblance of a legal right inhering in the petitioner to compel the respondents to continue her as a Warden or full-time teacher. The action of the respondents is not shown to be in contravention of any provision made in the government orders and executive instructions issued from time to time. Acceptance of the submission as addressed on behalf of the petitioner would amount to the Court by way of a prerogative writ commanding the respondents to modify the terms of the contract and rewrite the policy decisions taken by them and that too at the behest of a petitioner whose engagement from its inception rested on a contract. The writ petition would thus merit dismissal. Ordered accordingly. "
Sri Durga Singh, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent makes a statement at Bar relying upon the aforesaid dictum, coordinate Bench of this Court has proceeded to dismiss Writ - A No. 5602 of 2021 (Kusum Chauhan Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others) today itself.
In view of the above, following the same set of reasoning, the present Writ Petition also stands dismissed in terms of WRIT - A No. - 4845 of 2021 (Suneeta Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others).
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 A.K.Srivastava