2. The petitioner appears to have been selected and appointed as a part time Science Teacher (Biology) for a contract of one year by order dated 02.01.2008 which was subject to renewal on the basis of satisfactory performance of petitioner. It appears that by note dated 21.11.2009 the District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar made recommendation for renewal of the term of petitioner's contract but there is nothing on record to show that the same was in fact renewed or any extension of term was allowed to the petitioner. The respondents have now proceeded to make a fresh recruitment as a part time Science Teacher by means of the advertisement dated 16.01.2010.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his term having been renewed since he is still working on the post in question, no fresh advertisement for recruitment can be made. However, he could not place anything on record to show that his term was renewed or extended. Annexure4 to the writ petition to which the petitioner is relying is in fact only a recommendation but not a renewal. Even otherwise a contract of appointment does not confer any right to hold the post since it is liable to be terminated at any point of time and in case of wrongful termination of contract, the remedy lies in common law and not for seeking reinstatement since the service contract in question is not governed by the statutory provisions. The relief of reinstatement can be granted only in restricted matters. In such cases, where the 2 contract of service is not governed by the statutory provisions, it is wellsettled that contract of service cannot be sought to be enforced by seeking reinstatement or continuance in employment since such a relief is barred under the Specific Relief Act. In Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Lucknow Vs. C.K. Tyagi AIR 1970 SC 1244 considering the question as to when such a relief is granted the Apex Court observed:
"Under the common law the Court will not ordinarily force an employer to retain the services of an employee whom he no longer wishes to employ. But this rule is subject to certain wellrecognised exceptions. It is open to the Courts in an appropriate case to declare that a public servant who is dismissed from service in contravention of Article 311 continues to remain in service, even though by doing so the State is in effect forced to continue to employ the servant whom it does not desire to employ. Similarly under the Industrial Law, jurisdiction of the Labour and Industrial Tribunals to compel the employer to employ a worker whom he does not desire to employ, is recognised. The Courts are also investigated with the power to declare invalid the act of a statutory body, if by doing the act the body has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by statute, .................."
4. Again in para 25 of the judgment, the Court held:
"The position in law is that no declaration to enforce a contract of personal service will be normally granted. But there are certain wellrecognized exceptions to this rule and they are: To grant such a declaration in appropriate cases regarding (1) a public servant, who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Article 311. (2) Reinstatement of a dismissed worker under Industrial law by Labour or Industrial Tribunals. (3). A statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation, imposed by statute".
5. The above view has been reiterated in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others Vs. Lakshmi Narain 3 and others AIR 1976 SC 888 (paras 9, 10, 13 and 17); Smt. J. Tiwari Vs. Smt. Jawala Devi Vidya Mandir and others, AIR 1981 SC 122 (paras 4 and 5); and Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Escorts Ltd., and others AIR 1986 SC 1370 (paras 101, 102). Similar view has been taken by this Court also in A.K. Home Chaudhary Vs. National Textile Corporation U.P. Ltd., Kanpur 1984 UPLBEC 81; B.M. Varma Vs. State of U.P. and others 2004 (4) AWC 2866; and Vivek Kumar Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2811.
6. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.
Dt/28.01.2010 AK