Allahabad High Court
AKHILENDRA PRATAP SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A contractual appointee cannot be compelled by a writ to extend his tenure when the employer has declined, especially at a belated stage without an interim order.
Summary
The petitioners, three contractual lecturers, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18‑08‑2018 that refused to extend their employment tenure. No petitioner appeared before the court, and the petition was listed as likely to become infructuous due to the passage of time. The learned Standing Counsel argued that the petitioners, being contractual appointees, could not compel the employer to extend their services absent an interim order. The court agreed that at this belated stage the petitioners could not obtain relief, as the decision to extend tenure rested solely with the employer. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a contractual lecturer can obtain a writ of mandamus to compel the employer to extend his tenure after the employer has refused.
Subjects
- contractual appointment
- tenure extension
- writ petition
- infructuous
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 27570 of 2018
Akhilendra Pratap Singh And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. This case is of the year 2018 and today it is listed under the heading of
"WRITS LIKELY TO HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS (EFFLUX OF
TIME) ".
2. None appears for petitioners to press this writ petition.
3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioners have challenged an
order dated 18.08.2018 whereby tenure of petitioners' contract for post of
Lecturer was not extended.
4. As rightly pointed out by learned Standing Counsel that at such belated
stage, when there was no interim order, prayer of petitioners cannot be
adjudicated since petitioners were contractual appointees and it was up to
respondent Employer to extend his services or not.
5. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
May 7, 2026
N. Sinha
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…