Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8755 (ALL)

VINAY VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/15530/2026 · 2026-09-23

Manju Rani Chauhan

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15530 of 2026 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to renew the petitioner's contract/services of Part Time Instructor and permit him to discharge his duties as Part Time Instructor (Computer Education) at Composite School Sakhola,, Block-Amariya, District-Pilibhit, in pursuant of contract order dated 09.07.2013 issued by respondent no.2 and further to pay the monthly honorarium in accordance with law. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent no.2 to take an appropriate decision in furtherance of petitioner's pending representation dated 24.08.2026 forthwith." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working as a Part Time Instructor since 2013 and that his services were renewed up to the session 2023-2024. After the said session, the petitioner has not been permitted to work, without any notice or opportunity of hearing. He further submits that a representation dated 24.08.2026 was placed before the concerned authority, requesting renewal of his services, but no decision has been taken so far. Therefore, it is prayed that a direction may be issued to respondent no.2 to consider and decide the claim of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Chandra Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vinay Verma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner, in accordance with law, within a stipulated period. Learned counsel for the respondent-BSA submits that there is no provision for renewal of service as a Part Time Instructor where the petitioner approaches the Court after two years from the last renewal, i.e., the session 2023-2024. Even otherwise, the application for renewal was made for the first time on 24.08.2026, which is much after the session 2023-2024. However, he submits that in case the petitioner moves a fresh representation before the competent authority, an appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that petitioner may make fresh application/representation, ventilating all his grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the respondent no.2 District Basic Education Officer, District- Pilibhit, within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.2 shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. September 24, 2026 Rahul. WRIA No. 15530 of 2026 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad