Allahabad High Court
Sangeeta Yadav vs State Of U.P.Through Its Secy. ... on 13 March, 2023
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7678 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sangeeta Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Its Secy. Mahila And Bal Vikas Lko.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Prakash Singh,Shikhar Anand,Shobh Nath Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.10.2011 passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Masodha, Faizabad. A further prayer of mandamus has also been made seeking directions for the opposite party not to create any hindrance of the peaceful functioning of the petitioner on the post of Mini Anganwari Karyakatri at Mazare Banpurwa, Block Masodha, District Faizabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 07.10.2011, the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with on the basis of an inquiry conducted at Tehsil level in which the petitioner has not participated. It is thus submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the inquiry which has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner; there is no participation of the petitioner in the said inquiry and therefore, the order by which the services of the petitioner were dispensed with is arbitrary and violative of principles of nature natural justice and hence, the said order is liable to be set aside.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 03.01.2011 by the Bal Vikas Priyojna Adhikari, Masaudha Faizabad on purely contractual basis on the post of Anganwari Karyakatri at the honorarium of Rs. 750/- per month. The appointment order of the petitioner is on record.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that it was a contractual appointment and further depicts that the contractual services of the petitioner can be terminated at any time without notice. It further shows that in case of any of the certificates given by the petitioner are found to be forged/incorrect, the appointment order shall be deemed to have been automatically cancelled and the petitioner shall not have any claim.
Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the intervenor has submitted that the appointment order of the petitioner was purely contractual; it has not been done under any statute and therefore, no statutory right can be claimed by the petitioner and neither the petitioner can invoke enforcement of any constitutional right. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of "Santosh Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and others", reported in "2017 SCC Online All 3582".
On due consideration to the submissions advanced as well as perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis vide aforesaid appointment order dated 03.01.2011; perusal of the impugned order depicts that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of the certificates given at the time of her appointment, however, after appointment of the petitioner, a complaint was received by the authorities that she is not the resident of Gram Panchayat Para Kail, Majre Banpurwa and an inquiry was conducted at Tehsil level and in that inquiry it was found that the petitioner was not the resident of Gram Panchayat Para Kail, Majre Banpurwa, rather she is resident of Gram Panchayat Parakail ke Majre Pure Meharban; since the certificates adduced by the petitioner in support of her resident proof was found incorrect, a show cause notice was issued on 03.06.2011 to which she submitted a reply which was not found to be satisfactory and consequently after approval of the District Magistrate, the contractual services of the petitioner were terminated.
The controversy in the present case has been settled by the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Santosh Maurya (supra). Relevant paragraphs Nos. 6, 12 and 13 of the said judgment are extracted below:-
"6. Even if it is held that the said contractual appointment has been wrongly terminated, whether such contractual appointee can claim relief by invoking writ jurisdiction is a matter, need be considered, -at this stage. It is well-settled that enforcement of contract of personal service in a writ jurisdiction is not permissible except in certain limited circumstances. As already held by Full Bench in Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P. (supra) that appointment of Anganbari Karyakatri, is an appointment on contract basis, it is not governed by any statutory rules, it is governed by executive orders or a Scheme launched by Government. Such an appointment does not confer any status upon appointee and appointee is not governed by the Statute or Statutory provisions since the Scheme or executive orders do not enjoy status of statutory provision. The nature of engagement is like an ordinary contract between Master and servant.
xxxxxx
12. Court further said that there is a clear distinction between public employment governed by statutory rules and private employment governed purely by contract. The test for deciding the nature of relief - damages or reinstatement with consequential reliefs - is whether the employment is governed purely by contract or by a statute or statutory rules. Even where the employer is a statutory body, where the relationship is purely governed by contract with no element of statutory governance, the contract of personal service will not be specifically enforceable. Conversely, where the employer is a non-statutory body, but the employment is governed by a statute or statutory rules, a declaration that the termination is null and void and that the employee should be reinstated can be granted by Courts.
13. In view of above exposition of law, no relief of reinstatement, when the appointment/engagement is contractual, can be granted and at the best remedy lies in common law claiming damages for breach of contract. Hence, no effective relief can be granted to petitioner and the petitioner has remedy to seek damages in common law."
In view of the aforesaid position, so also the in view of the admitted facts that the appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual, I am of the view that no relief for reinstatement can be granted by this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction. In this case the appropriate course for the petitioner is to seek a remedy in the common law by filing appropriate suit.
The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.3.2023
R.C.
