Allahabad High Court
SMT RITUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The employer’s discretion to discontinue the contract was valid and the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, a contract teacher who also served as a warden, was found to have failed to refer a student with indigestion to a hospital, leading to the cancellation of her contract. The petitioner argued that the termination violated the principles of natural justice and sought relief through a writ petition. The court noted that no specific service rules governed the petitioner’s employment and that the employer possessed discretion to terminate the contract. Consequently, the court held that it could not interfere with the employer’s decision in writ jurisdiction. However, the court suggested that, in future contract applications, the employer may overlook the isolated incident given the petitioner’s otherwise spotless service record, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Did the termination of the petitioner's contract violate the principles of natural justice?
- Can the court interfere with the employer's discretionary power to discontinue a contract in the absence of specific service rules?
- Should the writ petition be set aside and the contract cancellation upheld?
Subjects
- contract termination
- natural justice
- service rules
- employer discretion
- writ jurisdiction
- employment law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6214 of 2026
Smt Ritu
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudhanshu Pandey, Yash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shivendra Kumar Singh
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri
Shivendra Pratap Singh, Advocate for Respondents-3 and 4.
2. This is second round of litigation. It is not under dispute that petitioner,
who was working on contract as a Teacher, was undertaking duties of
Warden also on relevant date when admittedly one student suffered
indigestion and admittedly she was not referred to Hospital, therefore,
petitioner’s contract was cancelled.
3. In earlier round of litigation, a Division Bench of this Court has
remitted matter to consider it afresh though occurrence was not disputed.
However, concerned respondent has again passed order that contract of
petitioner cannot be continued since petitioner was not careful while
discharging duties as Warden.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in given circumstances and
since principle of natural justice was not substantially followed, order
impugned in this writ petition can be set aside.
WRIA No. 6214 of 2026
2
5. However, the Court finds that there is no service rules applicable in the
case of petitioner. The incident is not denied. Therefore, employer has
discretion to discontinue the contract. In writ jurisdiction Court cannot
interfere with such orders.
6. However, in the interest of justice, it is observed that since petitioner
has worked from 2016 till impugned order was passed in 2025 and there
was no other complaint, therefore, in case she applies for fresh contract,
concerned respondent may consider ignoring incident in question and
taking note that petitioner’s earlier period of contract was otherwise
spotless.
7. With aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
May 6, 2026
AK
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…