Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47731 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2610 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Aruna Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Welfare Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdambika Prasad Tripathi,Indra Jeet Yadav,Vishwanath Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. 2. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail in the order dated 06.03.2025. For the sake of convenience relevant part of the order dated 06.03.2025 is reproduced below: "The petitioner, a contractual teacher, is aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby it has been indicated that after an inquiry, certain documents had been demanded by the petitioner which were directed to be provided to her but despite the petitioner having obtained the said documents, she failed to submit her reply. The competent authority has opined that as the petitioner has failed to submit any reply as such, some time would be required for taking a decision but her contractual period has been directed to come to an end on 29.06.2025. Contention is that once the entire episode against the petitioner has been inquired into, the petitioner has failed to submit any reply as such, it was for the competent authority to have taken a final decision in the matter but passing the order impugned in the aforesaid manner reflects patent non application of mind. The other aspect is that the petitioner has not been paid her salary since 01.07.2024." 3. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents points out that the contract of the petitioner was coming to an end on 29.06.2025. Earlier the petitioner had been asked to submit her reply to various misconducts committed by her. She has submitted detailed reply but as it was going to take time consequently a decision was taken that contractual services would not he extended beyond the date of 29.06.2025 till which the contract was valid. Consequently the order impugned has been passed. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is admittedly a contractual employee and the contract was to come to an end on 29.06.2025 and the respondents vide order impugned dated 23.01.2025 have also not decided to extend the contractual service of the petitioner consequently no error is found in the said order. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. However considering that the respondents have only proceeded to not extend the contract of the petitioner rather service have been dispensed with at the end of the contractual period as such it is provided that in case any contractual vacancy is notified the petitioner may apply for the same and her candidature may be considered accordingly. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 J. K. Dinkar Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench