High CourtsDivision Bench

Dr. Mala Arora vs Director of Higher Education and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 5 March 2003 · Citation: (2003) 3 AWC 1895 : (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1159

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prakash Krishna, J · M. Katju, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 22248 of 2002
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 272 words

M. Katju, J.—The petitioner is challenging the impugned order of the Director of Higher Education, U. P. dated 2.4.2002, Annexure-32 to the writ petition.

2.

The petitioner was appointed in Juhari Devi Girls Post Graduate College, Kanpur Nagar on a purely contractual and honorarium (Mandeya) basis in pursuance of the G.O. dated 7.4.1998. It appears that even an appointment order was not issued to the petitioner because none has been annexed to the petition. This appointment was without selection by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission. In our opinion, such purely contractual appointments on honorarium basis confers no right on the petitioner.

3.

All these aspects have been discussed by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Alok Kumar Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . In that decision, the G.O. dated 7.4.1998 has also been considered in great detail and it has been held that these appointees were only appointed for a very short span of time and they cannot claim regularisation. Their duties and functions are different from the regularly selected teachers. Such appointments were made due to shortage of regularly selected candidates so that teaching work may not suffer.

4.

However, the temporary appointees have no right to the post, as the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission did not select them. The liability of payment to such contractual appointee is wholly on the college management and there is no liability on the State Government to make payment of salary to the petitioner.

5.

In view of the aforesaid Division Bench decision, there is no force in this petition and it is dismissed.