Allahabad High Court
VINAY VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation and the respondent to decide it within a stipulated period, without deciding the merits of the renewal claim.
Summary
The petitioner, Vinay Verma, had been engaged as a Part‑Time Instructor (Computer Education) at a composite school in Pilibhit since 2013, with his contract last renewed for the 2023‑2024 session. After that session he was not permitted to continue, without any notice or hearing, and he filed a writ petition seeking renewal of his contract and payment of honorarium. He also submitted a representation on 24‑08‑2026 requesting renewal, which the respondent authorities had not acted upon. The respondents argued that there is no statutory provision for renewal after a two‑year lapse and that the petition was filed belatedly. The High Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Basic Education Officer within three weeks, and ordered the respondent to decide it within six weeks, providing a reasoned order after a hearing. The order thus emphasizes procedural compliance rather than adjudicating the substantive right to contract renewal.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking renewal of a part‑time instructor contract is maintainable after a lapse of two years from the last renewal.
- Whether the court can compel the respondent authority to decide a pending representation for contract renewal.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to renewal of his services and payment of honorarium without prior notice or hearing.
Subjects
- contract renewal
- part‑time instructor
- administrative law
- writ petition
- service termination
- procedural hearing
- representation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15530 of 2026
Vinay Verma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Chandra Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Kant Srivastava,
learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.
The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to renew the
petitioner's contract/services of Part Time Instructor and permit him to discharge his
duties as Part Time Instructor (Computer Education) at Composite School Sakhola,,
Block-Amariya, District-Pilibhit, in pursuant of contract order dated 09.07.2013
issued by respondent no.2 and further to pay the monthly honorarium in accordance
with law.
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent no.2 to
take an appropriate decision in furtherance of petitioner's pending representation dated
24.08.2026 forthwith."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been working as a Part Time Instructor since 2013 and that his
services were renewed up to the session 2023-2024. After the said
session, the petitioner has not been permitted to work, without any
notice or opportunity of hearing. He further submits that a
representation dated 24.08.2026 was placed before the concerned
authority, requesting renewal of his services, but no decision has
been taken so far. Therefore, it is prayed that a direction may be
issued to respondent no.2 to consider and decide the claim of the
WRIA No. 15530 of 2026
2
petitioner, in accordance with law, within a stipulated period.
Learned counsel for the respondent-BSA submits that there is no
provision for renewal of service as a Part Time Instructor where the
petitioner approaches the Court after two years from the last renewal,
i.e., the session 2023-2024. Even otherwise, the application for
renewal was made for the first time on 24.08.2026, which is much
after the session 2023-2024. However, he submits that in case the
petitioner moves a fresh representation before the competent
authority, an appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with
law.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case but without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of
the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing
that petitioner may make fresh application/representation, ventilating
all his grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised,
before the respondent no.2 District Basic Education Officer, District-
Pilibhit, within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of
this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.2 shall
make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, strictly in
accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order,
after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks
from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is
no legal impediment.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
September 24, 2026
Rahul.
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…