Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10390 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar Tripathi And 33 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. In somewhat similar facts and circumstance a Writ Petition No.9313 of 2018 has been disposed of by this Court vide following order passed on 3.4.2018:-
"1. Petitioners were appointed and are working as Assistant Coordinators, Block Resource Centre and have completed their 3 years working. They are aggrieved by an order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Jhansi, which records that fresh recruitment would be undertaken and, therefore, work be not taken from the petitioners.
2. Petitioners have relied upon the Government Order dated 2.2.2011, which provides in Clause9 that initial engagement of Coordinator would be for a period of three years, which could be extended by a further period of three years on the basis of satisfactory working. It is further provided that after completion of six years of service, it would be appropriate to conduct fresh recruitment.
3. Grievance of the petitioners is that through their services have been found to be satisfactory but without taking any decision with regard to their renewal, the respondents have stopped their working and fresh recruitment is being undertaken.
4. Learned counsel representing respondent no.6 submitted that the petitioners' claim for continuance in service in terms of the Government Order shall be examined by the competent authority within aperiod of four weeks.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to act in terms of the Government Order dated 2.2.2011, keeping in view clause9 thereof, which reads as under: "9. ch0vkj0lh0 leUo;d ,oa ,u0ih0vkj0lh0lh0 leUo;d dk in insu gksxkA fodkl[k.M] lalk/ku dsUnz ds lg&leUo;d@fjlkslZ ilZu dk dk;Zdky 03 o"kZ dk gksxk vkSj dk;Z larks"ktud gksus ij 03 o"kZ ds dk;Zdky dh vof/k vuqeksnuksijkUr gh c<+kbZ tk ldsxhA 06 o"kZ dh lsok ds mijkUr iqu% uohu p;u fd;k tkuk gh mi;qDr gksxkA ftlkslZ ilZu ds 02 in ftu ij fu;qfDr lafonk ds vk/kkj ij dh tkuh gS] mudh fu;qfDr 01 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy;s dh tk;sxh rFkk larks"ktud gksus dh fLFkfr esa o"kkZuqo"kZ c<+k;h tk ldsxhA"
6. So long as the issue of satisfactory working of petitioners is not examined, the authorities would not proceed to conduct fresh recruitment only because of the fact that the period of three years has expired.
7. Till afresh decision is taken by the respondents in the matter, as 2 indicated above, petitioners shall be allowed to continue. The continuance of petitioners, however, shall abide by the fresh decision to be taken, as indicated above.
8. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed off."
2. In the facts of the present case also, petitioners have actually worked for three years and their claim for extension has not been examined so far. It is stated that the order dated 31.3.2018, in such circumstances, is wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as it has the virtual effect of discontinuing petitioners' working as Assistant Coordinator.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners' grievance shall be examined in terms of clause 9 of the Government Order, as well as terms of engagement.
4. Considering the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to examine petitioners' claim for continuance in terms of the clause 9 of the Government Order, as directed in the order dated 3.4.2018 also. Till a fresh decision is taken in terms of the aforesaid direction, respondents shall not interfere with the working of the petitioners pursuant to order dated 31.3.2018 and the same shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the respondents.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Ashok Kr.