Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51410 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4375 of 2025 Petitioner :- Neel Mani Mishra Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Upadhyay,Punit Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Punit Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner and Mrs. Archana Singh, Advocate for Respondents-2 and 5. 2. Petitioner has successfully served as Academic Resource Person (hereinafter referred to as “ARP”) firstly from 04.06.2020 to October, 2023 and thereafter from 09th October, 2023 till he was directed to join at his original post of Assistant Teacher at concerned School. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has perused a judgment passed by this Court in Dilip Kumar Singh Rajput and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:43420 wherein a bar for applying as ARP after completion of three years tenure as ARP was held valid. Still, learned counsel submits that case of petitioner can be distinguished on facts. He submits that petitioner has applied in the recruitment process before notification dated 10.10.2024 came into force and was duly selected on 09.10.2023, therefore, he can continue atleast for three years. Learned counsel further submits that Dilip Kumar Singh Rajput (supra) will applicable to cases where after completion of three years, incumbents sought to participate in subsequent selection process. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents-2 and 5 has opposed the above submissions and placed reliance on Dilip Kumar Singh Rajput (supra) that three years period has to be calculated in its entirety and artificial distinction cannot be made. Petitioner has already served as ARP for more than three years as well as he has no absolute right to continue for further period. 5. I have considered the above submissions. It is not in dispute that petitioner was initially appointed on 04.06.2020 and it appears that his assignment was extended year to year and thereafter he has again participated in subsequent advertisement issued on 25.08.2022 wherein he was selected and appointed on 09.10.2023, under relevant scheme with a specific condition that his tenure will be of one year and it can be extended on year to year basis. 6. This Court in Dilip Kumar Singh Rajput (supra) has considered the factual aspects also and in para 8 a similar factual aspect was also taken note. For reference said para 8 is reproduced hereinafter: "८. सभभी ययाचचिकयाकरयार्ताओओ कया कथन हहै चक उनकके परफयाररओस अपकेसल पर हर वरर्ता उनकक चनययचक्ति कया नवभीनभीकरण ए.आर.पभी. कके पद पर चकयया गयया और उन्हहोंनके सफलरयापपूवर्ताक ३ वरर्ता पपूणर्ता चकयके एवओ वरर्तारयान रम भभी कयायर्ता कर रहके हह अथयार्तारत् वरर्तारयान रक करभीब ५ वरर्ता कया कयायर्ताकयाल पपूणर्ता कर ललयया हहै।" 7. Though at that stage it was not noted that in between a fresh selection was also taken place, still, the fact remains that in the present case petitioner has worked for more than three years as ARP. Therefore, the law considered in Dilip Kumar Singh Rajput (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case also. The artificial distinction that petitioner was appointed as ARP in subsequent selection process, therefore, three years period has to be considered from second appointment, has no legal basis. 8. In view of above, the relief sought by petitioner cannot be allowed. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad