Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140916-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 743 of 2025 Appellant :- Narendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 8998 of 2025 filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by respondent no. 4 i.e. District Education Officer, declining to renew the contract of the petitioner as Anshkalik Anudeshak (Health and Physical Education) having the effect of terminating the service of the appellant. 2. It appears that the appellant was engaged on contractual basis as Anshkalik Anudeshak (Health and Physical Education) in pursuance of Government Order dated 31.01.2013. The period of contract was 11 months and it was being renewed from time to time in terms of paragraph-6 of the Government Order, which is as follows: "6- अशककललक अननददशकक कक ककररककल- (1) अशककललक अननददशकक कक ककररककल अलधकतम 11 मकह कक हहगक एवअ ककसस भस शशककक सत मम 31 मई कह सवतत समकप हह जकरदगक तदददननसकर अशककललक अननददशकक कह 31 मई तक मकनददर ददर हहगक। (2) अशककललक अननददशकक कद नवसनसकरण कक ककररवकहस पतरदक वरर सअकवदक समकप हहनद कद कम सद कम एक मकह पपवर पकरमभ कक जकरद एवअ लजलकलधककरस कक अननमकत सद नवसनसकरणद कक ककररवकहसद सनकनशशशत कक जकरद। (3) लजन अशककललक अननददशकक कक सदवकएअ उपरनक न पकई जकरद उनकद समबनध मम पतकवलस पर सककर सकहत आअकलन ककरक जकरद। एककएक सदवक समकप न कक जकरदगस अकपतन ऐसद कमर कह अपनस सदवक मम सनधकर लकनद कद ललए सनझकव/ शदतकवनस लजलकलधककरस कक अननमकत सद लजलक बदलसक कशकक अलधककरस दकरक लललखत रप मम दस जकरदगस। रकद अननददशक कक सदवकएअ अननपरनक पकरस जकतस हश तह लजलकलधककरस कद पपवर अननमहदन सद लजलक बदलसक कशकक अलधककरस दकरक उसद एक मकह कक नहकटस ददकर सदवकओअ कह समकप ककरक जकरदगक। (4) गअभसर अननशकसनहसनतक कक शससकत मम रकद सदवक समकप करनद कक आवशरकतक पतसत हहतस हश तह लजलक बदलसक कशकक अलधककरस दकरक पनष पमकणक सकहत सवतत सपष पसतकव लजलकलधककरस कह पसतनत ककरक जकरदगक। सअकवदक समककप हदतन कनगरत आददश लजलकलधककरस कद अननमहदन कद उपरकनत हस मकनर हहगक।" 3. The admitted fact is that the appellant remained absent from duties from 17.11.2023 to 29.04.2024 without any prior intimation and consequently, Block Development Officer, Pharaha submitted a report to Chief Development Officer regarding unauthorised absence of the appellant. On basis of the said recommendation, the Chief Development Officer/District Magistrate, Mathura did not approve for the renewal of the contract of the appellant. The impugned order of District Basic Education Officer, Mathura also records that after the Chief Development Officer/District Magistrate declined to renew the contract of the appellant, the appellant submitted an application along with medical certificates and documents relating to his medical condition and which were got examined through the Chief Medical Officer and the documents does not justify the long absence. It is stated that the work and conduct of the appellant was not found to be satisfactory, therefore, the Chief Development Officer/District Magistrate, Mathura has declined to grant approval to the renewal of contract and accordingly the service of the appellant stands determined. 4. Learned Single Judge has considered the Government Order and has taken notice of the fact that under the Government Order in case, a person absents without leave, it would be illegal. It has also been observed that no opportunity of hearing was required to be given in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the appointment was contractual in nature and there was no indefeasible right to seek renewal. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1990 SC 2070. 5. Before we advert to the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, it is relevant to note that paragraph-6 of the Government Order deals with two situations. Clauses 1 and 2 collectively provide for the period of contract and the procedure for renewal of term of the contract. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the situation where the term of contract still subsists and the service is not found to be satisfactory. In such eventuality, the contract could be terminated only after notice period of one month. In case of gross misconduct, if service is required to be terminated immediately, the District Basic Education Officer would submit the proposal to District Magistrate and determine the contract after obtaining approval from him. 6. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the contract of the appellant came to end on 31st May, 2024. Admittedly, the contract was not renewed for the current session and it seems that at the stage of consideration of case of the appellant for renewal of contract, the Block Development Officer submitted his report regarding unauthorised absence of the appellant for more than five months out of total period of 11 months under the contract. The District Magistrate, having regard to the unauthorised absence of the appellant that too without any leave application, was of the opinion that the work and conduct of the appellant was not satisfactory and therefore, declined to grant approval for renewal of the contract. 7. In our considered opinion, while assessing the satisfactory service for purposes of renewal of contract, no notice or opportunity of hearing was required. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Government Order would not apply to the stage of consideration of the satisfactory services for purposes of renewal of contract but only to cases where a subsisting contract is terminated. As such, we find no illegality in the view taken by learned Single Judge that the appellant was not entitled to any notice. 8. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 gp Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad