Allahabad High Court
SMT DEV PRABHA SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The impugned order of non‑renewal cannot be interfered with.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Dev Prabha Sharma, a contractual Warden‑cum‑Teacher at Kasturba Gandhi Residential Girls School, Bareilly, challenged the non‑renewal of her 2025‑26 contract on the ground that no hearing was afforded before the adverse order. She argued that she had served continuously since 2009 with yearly renewals and no prior complaints. The respondents defended the order, citing the contractual nature of her appointment. The Court held that the order could not be interfered with, as there was no statutory requirement for a hearing before non‑renewal. However, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that if she applies for a fresh contract for 2026‑27, the authorities may consider her long service and financial hardship.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑renewal of a contractual appointment without a prior hearing violates principles of natural justice
Subjects
- contractual appointment
- non‑renewal
- natural justice
- employment law
- financial hardship
- administrative order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6638 of 2026
Smt Dev Prabha Sharma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brij Raj, Sanjive Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shivendra Kumar Singh
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Brij Raj, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shivendra Kumar Singh,
Advocate for Respondents-2, 5, 6 and 7.
2. Petitioner is admittedly a contractual appointee and she was working as a Warden-
cum-Teacher with Kasturba Gandhi Residential Girls Schools, Bareilly. Her contract
for the year 2025-26 is not renewed on various reasons that she was not diligent
towards her duties.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that there is no circular or provision
that petitioner be heard before any adverse order is passed, however, he further
submits that petitioner was working since 2009 and her contract was renewed on year-
to-year basis without any complaint.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has supported the impugned order.
5. I have considered aforesaid submissions and finds that impugned order cannot be
interfered. However, the writ petition is disposed of with observation that in case
petitioner applies for fresh contract for the year 2026-27 it may be considered by
concerned respondent on basis of her past service since 2009 to 2025 as well as that
she is suffering from financial constraint, therefore, a chance be given to improve her
working.
May 5, 2026
AK
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…