Aruna Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare

2. Shri Jay Ram, Deputy Director, Social Welfare is present in Court.

3. By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgement and order dated 14.8.2025 passed by the writ Court in Writ-A No. 2610 of

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant herein was engaged as a primary school teacher on contractual basis for the Rashtriya Ashram Paddhati Vidyalaya in the State of U.P. on 17.9.2010. Her contract was extended from time to time. She was ultimately considered and promoted/appointed as LT grade teacher, albeit on contractual basis in

2020. Ever since then her contract was extended every year. According to the appellant's counsel, once the present Principal of the school took charge in 2024, some animosity developed because of certain objections raised by the appellant, which ultimately led to issuance of several show cause notices to the appellant. The order which was impugned before the writ Court is dated 23.1.2025 which refers to show cause notices and non furnishing of any reply by the appellant. Consequently, while the subject matter of the said show cause notices was being inquired a fact which is mentioned in the order dated 23.1.2025 itself which was impugned before the writ Court, the Director passed the said order to the effect that inquiry 2 SPLA No. 315 of 2025 into the allegations would take some time, therefore, her services were extended till final decision in the inquiry or till 29.6.2025 whichever is earlier. Now this date 29.6.2025 was the date by which the contract of the appellant was to expire. The decision not having been taken, appellant's services came to an end on 29.6.2025. It is the order dated 23.1.2025 which was impugned before the writ Court.

5. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that this could not have been done by the Director and it is in violation of the Government Order dated 13.3.2020 which governs the extension of contract/service of such teachers and its renewal. He has invited our attention to the said Government Order. Para No. 3 of the said Government Order which is relevant reads as under:- "3- उपयु र््व शासनादेशों में उिल्लिखत ्िवस्था के ्वम में सम्यक िवचारोंपरान्त मुझे यह कहने का िनदरॏश हुआ है िक कृ पया राजकीय आ्शम प्धित िव्यालय में संिवदा पर कायर्रत ्ऺव्वा, सहायक अध्यापक एल०टी०्षेड० , सहायक अध्यापक ्ऺाथिमक एवं फामार्िसस्ट की संिवदा भरवाए जाने के सम्बन्ध में िनम्नवत् िबन्दुओं पर कायर्वाही सुिनि्ात कराने का क्ि करेंः- 1- शासनादेश िदनांक 03.01.2017 के अनुसार राजकीय आ्शम प्धित िव्यालयों में संिवदा पर कायर्रत िश्षकों/ अध्यापकों को वािषक कायर् एवं ्िवहार संतोषजनक पाये जाने पर अितिर्व watage देते हुये संिवदा का नवीनीकरण पूवर्वत् ्िवस्थानुरूप पूवर्वतर् अध्यापन सेवाओं एवं छा्ऴों के िहत में 01 िदन के अन्तर (गैप) रखते हुये स्वतः बढ़ाया जायेगा। ्ऺत्येक वषर् अनुबन्ध-प्ऴ भरवाने से अनावश्यक शैि्षक कायर् बािधत होता है। अतएव ्ऺत्येक वषर् अनुबन्ध-प्ऴ भरवाने की ्िवस्था को समाप्त कर िनदेशक, समाज कल्याण ्षारा नये ्ऺारूप (संलग्न) पर स्वतः नवीनीकरण की कायर्वाही की जाय, तािक संिवदा िश्षकों को नवीनीकरण की ्ऺि्वया से न गुजरना पड़े, िजससे अनावश्यक शैि्षक कायर् बािधत न हो। सम्बिन्धत संिवदा िश्षक का कायर् आचरण संिदग्ध होने तथा अनैितक ्िवहार का मूल्यांकन िनदेशालय स्तरीय सिमित ्षारा िकया जाय। सिमित ्षारा पूणर् रूप से संतु्ि होने पर संिवदा आगे बढ़ाने की संस्तुित करेगी। संिवदा नवीनीकरण की ्ऺिकया ्ऺत्येक वषर् 31 मई तक पूणर् कर ली जाय। यिद िकसी कािमक की संिवदा नवीनीकरण में िववाद की िस्थित उत्पन्न होने पर िनदेशक, समाज कल्याण 15 िदवस के अन्दर संिवदा नवीनीकरण का िनस्तारण सुिनि्ात करेगें। शासनादेश संख्या-791/26-4-2017-9(69)/2006 िदनांक 19.07.2017 के अनुसार अनुबन्ध प्ऴ चयन के 3 SPLA No. 315 of 2025 समय ्ऺस्तुत शैि्षक अथवा अन्य अिभलखों के गलत / कू ट-रिचत पाये जाने अथवा अन्य िकन्हीं पिरिस्थितयों में मण्डलीय उप िनदेशक, समाज कल्याण ्षारा संिवदा के सम्बन्ध में अिन्तम िनणर्य हेतु ्ऺकरण िनदेशक, समाज कल्याण, उ०्ऺ० को सन्दिभत िकया जायेगा। इस ्ऺकार संिवदा नवीनीकरण के समबन्ध में अिन्तम िनणर्य का अिधकार िनदेशक, समाज कल्याण में अन्तिनिहत है। अतः संिवदा कािमकों की संिवदा नवीनीकरण के सम्बन्ध िनणर्य िनदेशक स्तर से िलए जाए, इस ्ऺकार के ्ऺकरण शासन को िकसी भी दशा में सन्दिभत न िकये जाएं ।"

6. The contention is that before taking a decision as to the extension or non-extension of the contract/service of a teacher or its renewal or non- renewal, it is the Directorate Level Committee which is to make an assessment about the work and conduct of the teacher, which has not been done in the case.

7. It is also the submission that the inquiry or proceedings which were initiated against the appellant based on the show cause notices dated

29.11.2024 and 16.12.202 has not been concluded and no decision has been taken thereon, a fact which is mentioned in the order dated 23.1.2025 of the Director itself. It being so, there is no way that the extension of the services of the appellant could have been restricted to

29.6.2025. In fact, the issue as to whether her services were to be extended beyond 29.6.2025 or not should have been considered and decided as per the G.O. dated 13.3.2020 based on the assessment of work and conduct of the appellant by the Directorate Level Committee, which has not been done.

8. On the last day, we had summoned the records. Today, we asked Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Advocate General as to whether any assessment of the work and conduct of the appellant had been done by the Directorate Level Committee, he submitted that some input has been received from the District Level Committee, but no decision as such has been taken by the District Level Committee. He however invited our attention to the order dated 23.1.2025 by which the Director had taken the aforesaid decision to extend the services only up to 29.6.2025.

9. However, on a consideration of the Government Order and the contract of the appellant what we find is that her services were to come to an end on 29.06.2025 and for its extension or non-extension as per the G.O. 4 SPLA No. 315 of 2025 dated 13.3.2020, a consideration was required to be made in terms thereof and such consideration and decision had to be based on the evaluation of the work and conduct of the appellant by the Directorate Level Committee which admittedly and undisputedly had not been done.

10. As regards the proceedings/inquiry initiated by the appellant, even if the charges of the allegations against her are serious, it is an admitted fact, as is evident from the impugned order of the Director dated 23.1.2025 itself, that no decision has yet been taken in the matter, therefore, that by itself could also not be a material to pass the order dated 23.1.2025 in the manner in which it has been done.

11. Such an order dated 23.1.2025 could not have been passed based on the reasons mentioned therein.

12. Shri Kudesia has placed reliance upon a Government Order dated

25.3.2025 and says that this G.O. has to be read conjointly with the subsequent G.O. dated 13.3.2020 with respect. We find that by the G.O. dated 13.3.2020, the earlier Government Order including the G.O. dated

25.3.2025 have been modified as regards the process of renewal or extension of work and service of the teachers is concerned. We have already quoted the relevant extract of the G.O. dated 13.3.2020. The above quoted extract of the G.O. 13.3.2020 has not been complied as yet. There is no decision by the Directorate Level Committee which is a must before any such decision is taken.

13. We have perused the records and we find that there is no decision by the Directorate Level Committee as stated herein above.

14. We are of the opinion that a decision should be taken by the Directorate Level based on the evaluation of the work and conduct of the appellant by the Directorate Level Committee in terms of the G.O. dated

13.3.2020 and based on such recommendation, a fresh decision should be taken in terms of the said Government Order as to whether her contract is liable to be renewed or not.

15. For all these reasons, we find that learned Single Judge did not advert himself to relevant aspects of the matter, as discussed herein above, nor to 5 SPLA No. 315 of 2025 the relevant Government Orders, therefore, the impugned judgement cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed. For the reasons already given herein above, the order dated 23.1.2025 is also erroneous and illegal being violative of the G.O. dated 13.3.2020. It is also quashed. However, with liberty as already stated herein above, meaning thereby a fresh decision can be taken in terms of the G.O. dated 13.3.2020 at the earliest.

16. As a consequence of the aforesaid, the appellant shall be allowed to resume her duties on the post on which she was functioning. The period she has remained out of contract/service shall be treated as in service, but the payment of arrears of emoluments, if any, will depend upon the fresh decision to be taken, as aforesaid. The current emoluments shall be paid to the appellant with effect from her joining.

17. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. October 8, 2025 Shravan (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Shri Jay Ram, Deputy Director, Social Welfare is present in Court.

3. By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgement and order dated 14.8.2025 passed by the writ Court in Writ-A No. 2610 of

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant herein was engaged as a primary school teacher on contractual basis for the Rashtriya Ashram Paddhati Vidyalaya in the State of U.P. on 17.9.2010. Her contract was extended from time to time. She was ultimately considered and promoted/appointed as LT grade teacher, albeit on contractual basis in

2020. Ever since then her contract was extended every year. According to the appellant's counsel, once the present Principal of the school took charge in 2024, some animosity developed because of certain objections raised by the appellant, which ultimately led to issuance of several show cause notices to the appellant. The order which was impugned before the writ Court is dated 23.1.2025 which refers to show cause notices and non furnishing of any reply by the appellant. Consequently, while the subject matter of the said show cause notices was being inquired a fact which is mentioned in the order dated 23.1.2025 itself which was impugned before the writ Court, the Director passed the said order to the effect that inquiry 2 SPLA No. 315 of 2025 into the allegations would take some time, therefore, her services were extended till final decision in the inquiry or till 29.6.2025 whichever is earlier. Now this date 29.6.2025 was the date by which the contract of the appellant was to expire. The decision not having been taken, appellant's services came to an end on 29.6.2025. It is the order dated 23.1.2025 which was impugned before the writ Court.

5. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that this could not have been done by the Director and it is in violation of the Government Order dated 13.3.2020 which governs the extension of contract/service of such teachers and its renewal. He has invited our attention to the said Government Order. Para No. 3 of the said Government Order which is relevant reads as under:- "3- उपयु र््व शासनादेशों में उिल्लिखत ्िवस्था के ्वम में सम्यक िवचारोंपरान्त मुझे यह कहने का िनदरॏश हुआ है िक कृ पया राजकीय आ्शम प्धित िव्यालय में संिवदा पर कायर्रत ्ऺव्वा, सहायक अध्यापक एल०टी०्षेड० , सहायक अध्यापक ्ऺाथिमक एवं फामार्िसस्ट की संिवदा भरवाए जाने के सम्बन्ध में िनम्नवत् िबन्दुओं पर कायर्वाही सुिनि्ात कराने का क्ि करेंः- 1- शासनादेश िदनांक 03.01.2017 के अनुसार राजकीय आ्शम प्धित िव्यालयों में संिवदा पर कायर्रत िश्षकों/ अध्यापकों को वािषक कायर् एवं ्िवहार संतोषजनक पाये जाने पर अितिर्व watage देते हुये संिवदा का नवीनीकरण पूवर्वत् ्िवस्थानुरूप पूवर्वतर् अध्यापन सेवाओं एवं छा्ऴों के िहत में 01 िदन के अन्तर (गैप) रखते हुये स्वतः बढ़ाया जायेगा। ्ऺत्येक वषर् अनुबन्ध-प्ऴ भरवाने से अनावश्यक शैि्षक कायर् बािधत होता है। अतएव ्ऺत्येक वषर् अनुबन्ध-प्ऴ भरवाने की ्िवस्था को समाप्त कर िनदेशक, समाज कल्याण ्षारा नये ्ऺारूप (संलग्न) पर स्वतः नवीनीकरण की कायर्वाही की जाय, तािक संिवदा िश्षकों को नवीनीकरण की ्ऺि्वया से न गुजरना पड़े, िजससे अनावश्यक शैि्षक कायर् बािधत न हो। सम्बिन्धत संिवदा िश्षक का कायर् आचरण संिदग्ध होने तथा अनैितक ्िवहार का मूल्यांकन िनदेशालय स्तरीय सिमित ्षारा िकया जाय। सिमित ्षारा पूणर् रूप से संतु्ि होने पर संिवदा आगे बढ़ाने की संस्तुित करेगी। संिवदा नवीनीकरण की ्ऺिकया ्ऺत्येक वषर् 31 मई तक पूणर् कर ली जाय। यिद िकसी कािमक की संिवदा नवीनीकरण में िववाद की िस्थित उत्पन्न होने पर िनदेशक, समाज कल्याण 15 िदवस के अन्दर संिवदा नवीनीकरण का िनस्तारण सुिनि्ात करेगें। शासनादेश संख्या-791/26-4-2017-9(69)/2006 िदनांक 19.07.2017 के अनुसार अनुबन्ध प्ऴ चयन के 3 SPLA No. 315 of 2025 समय ्ऺस्तुत शैि्षक अथवा अन्य अिभलखों के गलत / कू ट-रिचत पाये जाने अथवा अन्य िकन्हीं पिरिस्थितयों में मण्डलीय उप िनदेशक, समाज कल्याण ्षारा संिवदा के सम्बन्ध में अिन्तम िनणर्य हेतु ्ऺकरण िनदेशक, समाज कल्याण, उ०्ऺ० को सन्दिभत िकया जायेगा। इस ्ऺकार संिवदा नवीनीकरण के समबन्ध में अिन्तम िनणर्य का अिधकार िनदेशक, समाज कल्याण में अन्तिनिहत है। अतः संिवदा कािमकों की संिवदा नवीनीकरण के सम्बन्ध िनणर्य िनदेशक स्तर से िलए जाए, इस ्ऺकार के ्ऺकरण शासन को िकसी भी दशा में सन्दिभत न िकये जाएं ।"

6. The contention is that before taking a decision as to the extension or non-extension of the contract/service of a teacher or its renewal or non- renewal, it is the Directorate Level Committee which is to make an assessment about the work and conduct of the teacher, which has not been done in the case.

7. It is also the submission that the inquiry or proceedings which were initiated against the appellant based on the show cause notices dated

29.11.2024 and 16.12.202 has not been concluded and no decision has been taken thereon, a fact which is mentioned in the order dated 23.1.2025 of the Director itself. It being so, there is no way that the extension of the services of the appellant could have been restricted to

29.6.2025. In fact, the issue as to whether her services were to be extended beyond 29.6.2025 or not should have been considered and decided as per the G.O. dated 13.3.2020 based on the assessment of work and conduct of the appellant by the Directorate Level Committee, which has not been done.

8. On the last day, we had summoned the records. Today, we asked Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional Advocate General as to whether any assessment of the work and conduct of the appellant had been done by the Directorate Level Committee, he submitted that some input has been received from the District Level Committee, but no decision as such has been taken by the District Level Committee. He however invited our attention to the order dated 23.1.2025 by which the Director had taken the aforesaid decision to extend the services only up to 29.6.2025.

9. However, on a consideration of the Government Order and the contract of the appellant what we find is that her services were to come to an end on 29.06.2025 and for its extension or non-extension as per the G.O. 4 SPLA No. 315 of 2025 dated 13.3.2020, a consideration was required to be made in terms thereof and such consideration and decision had to be based on the evaluation of the work and conduct of the appellant by the Directorate Level Committee which admittedly and undisputedly had not been done.

10. As regards the proceedings/inquiry initiated by the appellant, even if the charges of the allegations against her are serious, it is an admitted fact, as is evident from the impugned order of the Director dated 23.1.2025 itself, that no decision has yet been taken in the matter, therefore, that by itself could also not be a material to pass the order dated 23.1.2025 in the manner in which it has been done.

11. Such an order dated 23.1.2025 could not have been passed based on the reasons mentioned therein.

12. Shri Kudesia has placed reliance upon a Government Order dated

25.3.2025 and says that this G.O. has to be read conjointly with the subsequent G.O. dated 13.3.2020 with respect. We find that by the G.O. dated 13.3.2020, the earlier Government Order including the G.O. dated

25.3.2025 have been modified as regards the process of renewal or extension of work and service of the teachers is concerned. We have already quoted the relevant extract of the G.O. dated 13.3.2020. The above quoted extract of the G.O. 13.3.2020 has not been complied as yet. There is no decision by the Directorate Level Committee which is a must before any such decision is taken.

13. We have perused the records and we find that there is no decision by the Directorate Level Committee as stated herein above.

14. We are of the opinion that a decision should be taken by the Directorate Level based on the evaluation of the work and conduct of the appellant by the Directorate Level Committee in terms of the G.O. dated

13.3.2020 and based on such recommendation, a fresh decision should be taken in terms of the said Government Order as to whether her contract is liable to be renewed or not.

15. For all these reasons, we find that learned Single Judge did not advert himself to relevant aspects of the matter, as discussed herein above, nor to 5 SPLA No. 315 of 2025 the relevant Government Orders, therefore, the impugned judgement cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed. For the reasons already given herein above, the order dated 23.1.2025 is also erroneous and illegal being violative of the G.O. dated 13.3.2020. It is also quashed. However, with liberty as already stated herein above, meaning thereby a fresh decision can be taken in terms of the G.O. dated 13.3.2020 at the earliest.

16. As a consequence of the aforesaid, the appellant shall be allowed to resume her duties on the post on which she was functioning. The period she has remained out of contract/service shall be treated as in service, but the payment of arrears of emoluments, if any, will depend upon the fresh decision to be taken, as aforesaid. The current emoluments shall be paid to the appellant with effect from her joining.

17. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. October 8, 2025 Shravan (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench