Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61536 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10735 of 2014 Petitioner :- Smt. Manorama Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Pratap Gupta,Ramesh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Damodar Pandey,K. Shahi,K.S. Shukla,Sri Siddharth And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35499 of 2013 Petitioner :- State Programme Director Mahila Samakhya And Anr. Respondent :- D.M. Gorakhpur And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth,Siddharth Khare,Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- Damodar Pandey,H.P.Gupta,K.S. Shukla,Ramesh Rai And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 65483 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ranjana Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Damodar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- ,C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59258 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ranjana Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Bhushan (Senior Adv.),Damodar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- ,Arun Kumar,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Rai and Sri Hari Pratap Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ- A No.10735 of 2014, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition bearing No. 35499 of 2013 and Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Damodar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition bearing Nos. 65483 of 2015 and 59258 of 2015 and Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, learned A.C.S.C. for State. 2. The petitioner Smt. Manorama Shukla in Writ- A No.10735 of 2014 has claimed that she was appointed on post of Warden in the year 2006 on honorarium basis in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya at Bhatahat, District- Gorakhpur and her contract was renewed up to 2012 and when it was not renewed for the session 2013, she has approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 41887 of 2012, which was disposed of by an order dated 24.08.2012 directing District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to take an appropriate decision. The District Magistrate, thereafter passed an order dated 22.03.2013, whereby petitioner was reinstated. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :- "तनसर ज ल कररम समवरक महल रमर , गरखपर दर रच शमत मनरम शल, वररन क!त"रब ग$ध बजलक हवदलर 'लक भटट ज ल गरखपर क* स*व स+हवद अनबध क* समह. क* स/बध मम पररत आद*श क अप!त हकर त 3 तथ ज ल कररम समवरक महल समर, गरखपर क हनदरहशत हकर त 3 हक- 1. शमत मनरम शल क6 स*व समह. क आद*श हनर!त हकर र। 2. रच क फरवर 2012 स* मई 2012 तक क* कररवजध क मनद*र द*र 3 ज सक* भगतन क6 कररव क6 र। 3. रच क त:कल ;भव स* पद!थहपत हकर र। 4. हपछल* 6 वरर क* हरकलप क* द>रन हकस अहनरहमतत क6 स!थहत मम र@र !तरर महल समर कम*ट क गठन कर , सरकर हनरमB क* अनCप अहDम कररव कर सकत* 3। मननर उFच ररलर क* आद*श क* म मम रच शमत मनरम शल क* ;:रव*दन हदन+क 01.03.2013 क हन!तररत हकर त 3।" 3. The aforesaid order was thereafter challenged by one Ranjana Dwivedi (respondent No. 6) in present writ petition by way of filing Writ Petition bearing No.20386 of 2013, which was disposed of by an order dated 15.04.2013, whereby order impugned dated 22.03.2013 was set aside and matter was remitted to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to concerned parties. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the District Magistrate passed a fresh order dated 11.06.2013 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :- " आद*श - 1- क!त"रब ग+ध आवसर बजलक हवदलर भटट गरखपर मम वररन क एक पद !वकक त 3। एक पद क* सप*I ;थम वररत द*त* हर* प"वर स* करररत शमत मनरम शल क पद!थहपत हकर त 3। रहद महल समर च* त शमत र+ न हदव*द क महल समर दर स+चजलत अर हवदलर पर पद!थहपत कर सकत 3 ज सक* जलर* व !वतK 3। 2- शमत मनरम शल क फरवर 2012 स* मई 2012 तक क* करर अवजध क मनद*र त:कल भगतन हकर र*। 3- रहद मनरम शल क* हवCL हपछल* छM वरर क* हरकलप क* द>रन रहद कई अहनरहमतत पई गर त र@र !तरर महल समर कम*ट क गठन कर सरकर हनरमB क* अनCप अहDम कररव क6 र* एव+ दर पर* न* पर इनक6 स+हवद हव!तर क रकत* हर* शमत र+ न हदव*द क अवसर ;दन कर सकत* 3। म० उFच ररलर इलबद क* आद*श क* म मम रच र+ न हदव*द क* ;:रव*दन क हन!तररत हकर त 3।" 5. The aforesaid order was impugned by Smt. Manorama Shukla in Writ - A No. 10735 of 2014 as well as by State Program Director, Mahila Samakhya and District Program Coordinator Mahila Samakhya through Writ Petition No. 35499 of 2013. 6. Meanwhile, it appears that aforesaid order dated 11.06.2013 was not implemented and even before it, in pursuance of a fresh selection process Ranjana Dwivedi was appointed as Warden and she continued to work regularly, however, by a subsequent order dated 07.11.2015 a communication was made to said Ranjana Dwivedi that since certain directions are awaited, therefore, she was stopped to work. 7. The aforesaid order was challenged by Ranjana Dwivedi in Writ Petition bearing No.65483 of 2015. In the said writ petition following order dated 02.12.2015 was passed by this Court. It is claimed by said petitioner that in pursuance of interim order referred above, she is still working and her contract is renewed for 2025-26 also:- "Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Sri Arun Kumar has accepted notice for respondent no.5. Respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit. List this case after expiry of the aforesaid period. In the mean time, it is provided that petitioner's services shall not be discontinued on the basis of the impugned order dated 7.11.2015 passed by the District Programme Coordinator Mahila Samakhya Gorakhpur, which has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition." 8. Learned counsel for petitioner (Manorama Shukla) submits that writ petition was filed since order dated 11.06.2013 was not complied with, and admittedly, till date, said order is not complied. The said order is not challenged at the behest of Ranjana Dwivedi though it was against her also. It was challenged at behest of District Program Coordinator Mahila Samakhya though he has no locus to challenge it. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in Writ Petitions Nos. 65483 of 2015 and 59258 of 2015 submits that since petitioner Ranjana Dwivedi was continued to work on the post of Warden on basis of interim order dated 02.12.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.65483 of 2015 and her contract is renewed now till 2026, there was no occasion to challenge the order dated 11.06.2013 as it was not implemented as well as it was challenged at the behest of State Program Director, Mahila Samakhya. 10. Learned counsel for District Program Coordinator Mahila Samakhya refers paragraph No.21 of this writ petition No.35499 of 2013, which is reproduced hereinafter :- "That consequent upon the order dated 15.04.2013 the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur again passed the impugned order No. Pra.San./SSA/214/2013-14 dated 11.06.2013 contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. The District Magistrate, Gorakhpur yet again without application of mind and without making any factual inquiry passed the impugned order on the pretext that no record with respect to the notice or termination of contract of Manorma Shukla has been produced by the petitioner No. 2 whereas the contract with respect of Manorma Shukla came to an end on 31.05.2012 by efflux of time and the post of Warden was advertised and that Manorma Shukla appeared in the selection process and was found unsuccessful. Significantly, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, while deciding the representation of Manorma Shukla by order dated 22.3.2013 neither gave a hearing to the petitioner No.2 nor while deciding the representation of Ms.Ranjana Dwivedi by order dated 11.6.2013 heard the petitioner No.2 nor took notice of the facts." 11. The Court after going through above paragraph. The Court is of the view that using such hard word ought to have been avoided. 12. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that order dated 11.06.2013 was not implemented despite this writ petition was pending for last more than a decade and Ranjana Dwivedi despite the aforesaid order was against her without even challenging the same continued to work as Warden on the strength of an interim order dated 02.12.2015 passed in writ petition filed by her, therefore, much water has flown. It is not under dispute that said Ranjana Dwivedi was selected against advertisement wherein other petitioner Smt.Manorama Shukla has also participated. 14. The selection is not under challenge, therefore, there was no illegality that Ranjana Dwivedi has worked till date. The order dated 11.06.2016 was challenged at the behest of State Program Director Mahila Samakhya and as referred above, direction in regard to Manorama Shukla was challenged that since Ranjana Dwivedi has already been selected, therefore, no relief could be granted to Manorama Shukla. 15. In my opinion, the issue raised in said writ petition has substance since the appointment of Ranjana Dwivedi in pursuance of fresh advertisement was not challenged, there was no reason with District Magistrate- Gorakhpur to pass any order in favour of other petitioner i.e. Manorama Shukla, therefore, impugned order dated 10.06.2013 is set aside , with the direction that Ranjana Dwivedi to continue to work subject to her yearly renewal of contract and be paid regular salary, if already not paid. 16. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.10735 of 2014 is dismissed, Writ Petition No. 35499 of 2013 is allowed, Writ Petitions Nos.65483 of 2015 and No. 59258 of 2015 are disposed of. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad