Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107798 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12972 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate,Gaurav Sharan Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Bipin Bihari Pandey,C.S.C.,Durga Singh,Mohd Shere Ali Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Awantey Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Durga Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent nos.5 and 6 to forthwith accord renewal of the contractual services of the petitioners as Itinerant & Resource Teachers for the academic Session 2019-20 in pursuance to Circular dated 24.06.2019 issued by the State Project Director and a further prayer to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to function as Itinerant & Resource Teacher in District- Maharajganj as they have functioned till May, 2019 and also to pay the petitioners their regular monthly emoluments every month. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are 17 in number were appointed on the post of Itinerant & Resource Teachers in District-Maharajganj for imparting instructions of studies to physically challenged students on contractual basis. Their contract was renewed from time to time upto year 2018-19 and when the aforesaid contract was not renewed from 2018-19, the respondent no.5 had issued a letter dated 25.06.2019 to Block Education Officer, Maharajganj for submitting a report after verifying the performance of all such appointed Itinerant & Resource Teachers for the purpose of renewal for the sessions 2019-20. Pursuant to aforesaid, Block Education Officer submitted a report recommending the renewal of all the petitioners, who are 17 in number, but respondent no.5 vide its order dated 27.07.2019 has renewed the contract of only 12 Itinerant & Resource Teachers. Despite the aforesaid recommendation, the contracts of the remaining petitioners were not renewed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that "pick and choose policy" has also been adopted in renewing the contracts of such Itinerant & Resource Teachers. Therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent nos.5&6 to renew the contracts of the petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&6 submits that initially, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Itinerant & Resource Teachers for the period of 11 months and it was to be renewed on the basis of performance and work of the petitioners. He further submits that even as per the Circular dated 09.09.2010, the appointment of the petitioners was on a contractual basis on a fixed payment of Rs.6,000 per month for the year 2010-11 and it has been mentioned in his letter of District Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj placed at Page 21 of the petition that the appointment would automatically come to an end after a lapse of the period for which they have appointed. It has also been mentioned that in case unsatisfactory work has been found on behalf of the Itinerant & Resource Teachers, their contracts automatically comes to an end. He further submits that from the records itself, it is clear that the petitioners' appointment was contractual and there is nothing on record to show that the service of the petitioners was renewed or that the contract period was extended from time to time, therefore, they have no right to be continued on the said post. I have perused the entire records, it is found that the petitioners do not have any right to continue on a contractual post, where their contract has admittedly come to an end. In the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the matter of contractual appointment, employee has no right to continue in post after efflux of time. Even if he/she continues beyond the fixed period, it would not confer any right to claim his/her renewal or regularisation. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad