Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75088-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 229 of 2025 Appellant :- Ojas Shandilya Respondent :- The Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nityodit Tripathi,Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anurag Sharma,Hem Pratap Singh Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Appellant was appointed on contractual basis in the respondent- University in the year 2016. His appointment was for a fixed term which was extended from time to time. A communication came to be issued to the appellant informing him that his term is coming to an end and that he should not rejoin unless a new extension letter or formal approval from the competent higher authority is issued. It is this communication which was put to challenge before the learned Single Judge. 2. Before learned Single Judge the respondent-University made a statement that the post against which contractual engagement was offered to the appellant has now been advertised for regular selection and it is not mandatory that contractual engagement be extended any further. 3. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior counsel for the appellant argues that it is not a case of simpliciter discontinuance of contractual engagement on expiry of term rather the discontinuance is stigmatic, inasmuch as it is preceded by some inquiry in which a questionnaire was asked to be filled up by the appellant. This questionnaire has also been placed on record. It is also suggested that some inquiry was conducted which is the foundation for discontinuance of the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, makes a statement before the Court that the discontinuance of the appellant is not due to any stigmatic order and it is a simpliciter disengagement upon expiry of fixed term engagement of the appellant. A statement is also made that the appellant shall be at liberty to apply against the post and his candidature will also be accorded consideration alongwith others. 5. Having examined the respective contentions, we find that the engagement offered to appellant was contractual in nature and was extended from time to time. There is no order passed by the authorities discontinuing the engagement of the appellant based on any charges. It is otherwise open for the respondents to obtain reports etc in order to assess the suitability of a contractual employee for extension. So long as such reports are merely to assess the suitability and no stigmatic action is taken the contractual employee can have no grievance in that regard. 6. Even otherwise a contractual employee cannot claim continuance on contractual post as a matter of right. If the employer has taken a decision to fill up the post by direct recruitment, we find no exception to such action of the respondent- University. It goes without saying that the discontinuance of the appellant will be treated as simpliciter in nature and shall not be construed as any material adverse to the appellant for the purposes of applying against the post and his claim will be considered alongwith others on merits and, in accordance with law. 7. In view of the statement made by Sri Hem Pratap Singh, appearing for the respondent-University that the appellant is well within the age of consideration no direction is required to be issued for age relaxation. 8. Special appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 RA Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad