Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103641 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18856 of 2018 Petitioner :- Huma Pakar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Yadav,Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chandra Yadav Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. List is revised. None appears for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Nagendra Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 are present. Perused the record. Record shows that the petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by respondent no. 4 - Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Block Baniakhera, District Sambhal, whereby on the completion of her contractual period and denial of renewal, the charge of Warden has been taken from the petitioner. It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties as a warden in Kasturba Gandhi Residential Girls School, Baniakhera, District Sambhal and to pay her salary w.e.f. April 2008 to 16.07.2018. As per the facts averred in the writ petition, pursuant to an advertisement dated 14.07.2015, the petitioner was engaged as a Warden-cum-Teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Girls School, Baniakhera, Sambhal for the Session 2016-17 on contractual basis. She joined her services on 28.01.2016 and had been discharging her duties to the satisfaction of her superiors. Her contractual appointment was renewed for the next academic session i.e. 2017- 18 on 31.05.2016. Whereafter, for the academic session 2018-19 a proposal for renewal of her name was sent by respondent no 4. She continuously worked till 16.07.2018. However, despite the recommendation of respondent no. 4, petitioner's engagement was not renewed, and by the order impugned her engagement has been cancelled, hence the present petition. The ground to challenge the action of respondent authority taken by the petitioner is that she had performed her duties as warden diligently and to the satisfaction of her superiors and on the basis of satisfactory performance, her engagement was renewed for the academic session 2017-18, however, without any justifiable reason petitioner's contractual engagement was cancelled by the order impugned, thus, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 submits that from the order impugned itself, it is clear that the petitioner's appointment was contractual, therefore, she has no right to be continued on denial of renewal. He further submits that contractual appointment of the petitioner was not renewed for the Session 2018-19 as there were some complaints made against her, upon which an inquiry was conducted by a Three-Member Committee, which submitted a report against the petitioner. On the basis of report submitted by the said committee, renewal of the petitioner's engagement was not made for the Session 2018-19 and her services were discontinued. It is next contended that even otherwise as per the requirement as detailed in the impugned order, the appointment of the petitioner was contractual, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. I have perused the grounds for rejection mentioned in the impugned order. The petitioner does not have any right to continue on a contractual post, where her 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 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 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 :- 3.7.2025 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad