Allahabad High Court
Munnesh Kumar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155855-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 938 of 2022
Petitioner :- Munnesh Kumar And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K.Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Pooja Agarwal
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Ms. Pooja Agarwal for respondent nos.2 and 3.
2. Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 30.10.2021 passed by respondent no.3.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents to permit to the petitioners for giving his regular duty on the post of para legal volunteer on account of respective appointments and also paid honorairum to the petitioners as per guideline."
3. Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that all the petitioners were initially engaged on the post of Para Legal Volunteers (PLVs) purely on contractual basis at Tehsil level in District Agra. Their engagements were temporary in nature on honorarium basis for stipulated period. The said period had already expired. Even thereafter fresh engagements of PLVs have also taken place for the year 2022. In the said selection process, the petitioners were one of the candidates but they could not be selected. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. She has further submitted that since the engagement of the petitioners was governed by a mere contract of service, a writ petition either for its enforcement or alleged violation of its terms would not be maintainable. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ram Niwas Sharma vs Union of India and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine All 205, wherein it is observed as under:-
"????..18. As has been lucidly explained, contracts of a purely private nature even though entered by bodies which may perform a public function would not be subject to judicial review. The only exception would be where such contracts are governed or regulated by statute. In the present case it is the undisputed position that the byelaws and the service conditions which apply are non statutory. They are deprived of any statutory ordainment. Such a contract, as noted above, would remain a pure private contract of service. In that view of the matter the writ petition challenging the termination of such a contract would not be maintainable."
4. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the petitioners were initially engaged as PLVs at the Tehsil level in District Agra. Admittedly their engagements were temporary in nature for certain period and the said period had expired. New incumbents have already joined and working as PLVs. It is well settled that the matters of contract can ordinarily be not entertained in writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The contract employments are given only for a short period due to exigency of work. After period of contract, they cannot claim continuance on the said post. In view of this, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
5. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.8.2023
SP/
