# Manoj Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 380
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-29
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 24985 of 2017
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54915
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Now it is in the backdrop of these principles that it become appropriate to advert to the precedents
of this Court which hold the field.

54. The impugned order dated 25.06.2012 which proceeds to cancel the entire selection of
Assistant Teachers without any segregation, without any finding against the petitioners and without
affording opportunity of hearing, is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be set aside.

55. Considering in totalities of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no finding whatsoever recorded in the judgment passed by the High
Court at Allahabad in relation to the selection of Assistant Teachers, nor was the selection of
Assistant Teachers under consideration before the Court. This Court is also of the considered
opinion that the findings returned in the judgment dated 18.01.2013 are confined only to the
selection of Principals and cannot, in any manner, be extended or applied to the independent and
distinct process of Assistant Teachers, including that of the petitioners.

56. Accordingly, all the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. Impugned order dated
25.6.2012 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow (respondent no.2) as
contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition is quashed only so far it relates to the selection of
Assistant Teachers.

57. However, the respondents are directed to release and disburse the entire outstanding salary
and all consequential dues payable to the petitioners from September, 2017 till date, forthwith, as
the petitioners have been continuously discharging their duties without payment within a period of
three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and pay regular salary
month by month.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 380
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 24985 of 2017
With
Writ-A No. 7819 of 2020 And 13532 of 2018

Manoj Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Entitlement of Part-time Instructors to get renewal of service.
(2) Validity of the impugned order refusing grant of renewal to the Part-time Instructors on the ground that
the strength of students was reduced below one hundred.
4 All. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
381
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Renewal of service - Entitlement - Part-time instructors were disengaged from
service on the ground that the strength of students was reduced below one hundred - Validity
challenged - Plea raised that no such condition is mentioned in the GO dated 31.01.2013 to not
to renew appointment in the event the strength of students decreases below 100 -
Permissibility: (E-1)
Held: The engagement is purely contractual, ordinarily for a fixed term of 11 months, and is subject to
renewal upon fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in Clause 6 of the Government Order. The renewal of
part-time instructors is contingent upon the availability of requisite students' strength, existence of
requirement/ vacancy, and satisfactory performance and verification of the instructor concerned. [Para 18]
Further held: Solely, a part-time instructor be not held responsible for reduction in students strength.
His/her role is to impart teaching to the students and not to manage other institutional affairs, thus, the
disengagement of a part-time instructor on the ground of drop in numbers of students is not only arbitrary
but also unjust as there are several other factors also, which may often be out of his/ her control and
contribute in declining students strength - Although no enforceable right of renewal accrues to the petitioners
where the foundational condition of student strength of 100 or more is not satisfied, yet in light of the
apparent inconsistency in implementation and in order to ensure fairness in administrative action, it would be
appropriate to remit the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration. [Para 20 and 21]

Case Law Cited
U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association vs. State of UP and others. 2026 SCC Online SC
147: 2026 INSC 117; Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826; Writ A No. 7819 of
2020, Neetu vs. State of U.P. & others; Writ A no. 49746 of 2017, Pradeep Kumar and 9 others vs. State of
U.P. and others decided on 27.11.2018 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 21-A; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Ss. 19
and 25; Government Order dated 31.01.2013 - Clause 6.

List of Keywords
Part-time Instructor, Renewal of service, Termination, Reasoned and speaking order, Strength of service,
difference of nomenclature, Reduced strength of students, Reduction of students strength, Exploitation,
Temporary labels, Lack of career progression, Denial of basic rights and benefits, Dignity, Security,
Development, Contractual engagement, Disengagement of a part-time instructor, Drop in numbers of
students, Apparent inconsistency in implementation, Fairness in administrative action.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4 refusing to renew the services of the
petitioners.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Durga Tiwari, Sanjay Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondents: Ajeet Singh, Pankaj Kumar Singh, L.M. Singh (SC), Saurabh Sachan (BH),
Ritesh Singh (BH), Ms. Rishu Mishra, N. K. Pandey.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mrs. Durga Tiwari and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
L.M. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Saurabh Sachan holding brief of Mr. Ajeet
Singh and Mr. Ritesh Singh holding brief of Ms. Rishu Mishra and Mr. N.K. Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondents.
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. In the above-mentioned three petitions, the petitioners have sought relief for their
continuance as part-time instructors in their respective districts. By the orders impugned, renewal
of services of the petitioners on the post of part-time instructors has been terminated on the ground
that the strength of students has reduced below one hundred.

3. The petitioners have approached this Court claiming that in furtherance of the constitutional
goal as enshrined under Article 21A of the Constitution of India, the Central Government has
framed an Act in the name of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. In
furtherance of the said Act, the State Government issued Government Order dated 31.01.2013
sanctioning 41307 posts of part time instructors for imparting education i.e. Art Education, Health
and Physical Education and Work Education. The State Government in pursuance of the said
Government Order dated 31.01.2013 issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible
candidates for appointment on the posts of part time instructors. The petitioners being eligible,
applied and were selected on the post of part time instructors.

4. To understand the controversy, facts of each petition are being enumerated, in brief,
separately, which are as follows:

4.1 The petitioners in Writ-A No. 24985 of 2017 were engaged for the academic session
2013-14 on the posts of part-time instructors. Their services were renewed up till 2015-16,
however, no renewal was made for the academic session 2016-17 on the ground that strength of
students in their institutions had gone below 100. Aggrieved therefrom, they preferred Writ-A No.
57096 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 05.12.2016, wherein a
direction was issued to the petitioners to file individual applications before the competent authority
raising all their grievances, which were directed to be decided by a reasoned and speaking order.
Petitioner's representations have been rejected by the order impugned, which is being assailed in
the writ petition.

4.2 The petitioner - Neetu in Writ-A No. 7819 of 2020 was appointed as part-time
instructor for Art Education in Upper Primary School, Panwari, Gunnaur, District Sambhal. Her
services were renewed from time to time up till the academic session 2017-2018. However, her
services have not been renewed for the academic session 2019-2020. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted an application on 04.11.2019 before respondent no. 3, but the same has failed to elicit
any response.

4.3 The petitioners in Writ-A No. 13532 of 2018 were initially appointed as part-time
instructors on 29.06.2013. Their services were renewed from time to time up till the academic
session 2017-18, however, pursuant to order dated 28.10.2017, the respondent authorities stopped
the teaching work and marking attendance in the concerned register. Aggrieved thereby the
petitioners filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1393 of 2018, which was disposed by order dated
11.01.2018 with a direction to the authority concerned to decide petitioners' claim/ representation.
Pursuant thereto, the respondent no. 4 has passed the impugned order dated 16.03.2018 which is
impugned in the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that no such condition is mentioned in the
Government Order dated 31.01.2013 or any subsequent orders or circulars, where, in the event the
strength of students decreases below 100, the appointment of the part-time instructors shall not be
4 All. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
383
renewed. As per Sections 19 and 25 and the Schedule appended to the Right of Children of Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, where students were more than 100, the part-time teachers
were to be appointed. The renewal of part time instructors is governed by Clause-6 of the
Government order dated 31.01.2013, which reads as follows:

"6. अंशकालिक अनुदेशकों का कार्यकाि--

(1) अंशकालिक अनुदेशकों का कार्यकाि अधिकतम 11 माह का होगा एवं ककसी भी
शैक्षिक सत्र में 31 मई को स्वतः समाप्त हो जार्ेगा तदानुसार अंशकालिक अनुदेशकों को 31 मई
तक मानदेर् देर् होगा।

(2) अंशकालिक अनुदेशकों के नवीनीकरण की कार्यवाही प्रत्र्ेक वर्य संववदा समाप्त होने
के कम से कम एक माह पूवय अवश्र् प्रारम्भ की जार्े एवं जजिाधिकारी की अनुमतत से
नवीनीकरण की कार्यवाही सुतनजश्ित की जार्े।

(3) जजन अंशकालिक अनुदेशकों की सेवाएं उपर्ुक्त न पाई जार्े उनके सम्बन्ि में
पत्राविी पर साक्ष्र् सहहत आकंिन ककर्ा जार्े। एकाएक सेवा समाप्त न की जार्ेगी अवपतु ऐसे
कमी को अपनी सेवा में सुिार िाने के लिर्े सुझाव / िेतावनी जजिाधिकारी की अनुमतत से जजिा
बेलसक लशिा अधिकारी द्वारा लिखित रूप में दी जार्ेगी। र्हद अनुदेशक की सेवाएं अनुपर्ुक्त
पार्ी जाती है तो जजिाधिकारी के पूवय अनुमोदन से जजिा बेलसक लशिा अधिकारी द्वारा उसे एक
माह का नोहिस देकर सेवाओं को समाप्त ककर्ा जार्ेगा।

(4) गंभीर अनुशासनहीनता की जस्ितत में र्हद सेवा समाप्त करने की आवश्र्कता प्रतीत
होती है तो जजिा बेलसक लशिा अधिकारी द्वारा पुष्ि प्रमाणों सहहत स्वतः स्पष्ि प्रस्ताव
जजिाधिकारी को प्रस्तुत ककर्ा जार्ेगा। संववदा समाजप्त हेतु तनगयत आदेश जजिाधिकारी के
अनुमोदन के उपरान्त ही मान्र् होगा।"

6. As per the aforesaid condition, there was no requirement of rejecting the renewal of services
of the petitioners, in case students' strength in the institution goes below 100. The strength of
students prescribed in the Schedule is only for the purposes of initial inspection of the institution, in
which part-time instructors are to be appointed.

7. Learned counsel relying upon a judgment of Apex Court in the case of U.P. Junior High
School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, submits
that while deciding the issue regarding enhancement of honorarium, the Court has observed that the
part-time instructors / teachers appointed pursuant to the relevant Government order are to be
treated at par with other teachers as they possess the basic educational qualification and eligibility
as set out by the National Council for Teacher Education5 which are at par with the norms laid
down for appointment of regular teachers.
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. It has been further observed in the aforementioned case that part-time contractual
instructors/ teachers appointed by the State Government under the Scheme are in no way inferior to
the regular teachers or the Assistant Teachers appointed otherwise under the scheme. The Apex
Court has gone to the extent of observing that the part-time contractual instructors/ teachers cannot
be treated as part time teachers even though they are described as such so far. It is for the simple
reason that Clause 5 of their service contract stipulates that they are being appointed with the
condition that they would not directly or indirectly take up any part time appointment or full-time
job anywhere else. The moment Government prohibits these instructors/teachers from taking any
part time or full-time job anywhere else, they should de facto be treated as full time teachers. Thus,
it is only a difference of the nomenclature hence the rejection of renewal on the basis of reduced
strength of students is bad in the eyes of law.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that that the petitioners have worked for
more than three years and their renewal has been rejected on a non-existent ground i.e. reduction of
students strength below 100, about which there is no whisper in the Government Order, pursuant to
which they have been appointed, and also neither in any of the provisions as framed under the RTE
Act, 2009 nor by the norms as set out by the NCTE.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Jaggo v. Union of India and others, wherein it has been observed that it is a hard
reality that temporary employees, particularly in Government institutions often face multifaceted
forms of exploitation which include misuse of "temporary labels", "lack of career progression" and
"denial of basic rights and benefits". It further observed that employees engaged for work which is
essentially recurring and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as
"temporary" or "contractual" employees even though their roles mirror those of regular employees.
Such deceptive description of the employees deprives them of their dignity, security and benefits
that other regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical duties. These employees
often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions or
incremental pay raises, and they remain stagnant in their roles. They are deprived of fundamental
benefits such a pension, provident fund, health insurance and paid leave even though they work for
decades resulting in social insecurity.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in the connected petition i.e. Writ-A No.
7819 of 2020, relied upon a judgement of this Court passed in the case of Pradeep Kumar and 9
others v. State of U.P. and 4 others, as decided on 27.11.2018, wherein the order cancelling
renewal has been set aside directing the authorities to consider the appointment of the petitioners
therein as part time instructors in case they apply in pursuance of any future advertisement. In the
Special Appeal Defective No. 414 of 2019, a Division Bench of this Court modified the order
passed by the writ Court dated 27.11.2018 to the extent that the authorities were directed to
consider the candidature of the petitioners/ appellants therein for renewal of contract as per Clause6 of the Government Order dated 31.01.2013.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that initially the petitioners were appointed for a
period of 11 months and their services were renewed only after finding that they had put in
satisfactory service. In case of any complaint or unsatisfactory work, if done by the part time
4 All. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
385
instructors, a notice should have been given to them and after approval by the District Magistrate,
action of giving warning or dispensing with their services, would have been taken.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contend that in view of the above the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that under the RTE Act, 2009, the Schedule
of Sections 19 and 25 clearly mandates where the number of students in the institution is more than
100, the aforesaid provision will apply and one teacher for every thirty-five children, and for those
subjects 01-01 part time instructor will be appointed on the basis of contract, but if the condition
specified in the Act regarding number of students is not fulfilled, the aforesaid will not apply and
no part time instructor will be appointed. One such issue came before the Court, and in pursuance
of the directions issued by the Court, a District Level Committee looked into scheme of part time
instructors therein, and held if the number of students is more than 100, services of the part time
teachers will be renewed.

15. The judgments as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ-A No. 7819 of
2020 do not relate to the issue in question as in those cases due to unsatisfactory services of parttime instructors, the renewal was not done.

16. The deterioration in the strength of students can be interpreted in so many words as nonsatisfactory services of the petitioners hence there is no illegality in the order impugned.

17. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.

18. Upon perusal of the Government Order dated 31.01.2013, it is evident that the scheme
provides for engagement of part time instructors on the basis of student strength, generally at the
ratio of one instructor per 100 students. The engagement is purely contractual, ordinarily for a fixed
term of 11 months, and is subject to renewal upon fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in Clause6 of the Government Order. The renewal of part-time instructors is contingent upon the availability
of requisite students strength, existence of requirement/ vacancy, and satisfactory performance
and verification of the instructor concerned.

19. The scheme being need-based, the continuation of engagement is intrinsically linked with
the existence of such need. Once the students strength falls below the prescribed threshold, the
very basis of engagement ceases to exist. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot ordinarily
be compelled to continue the engagement, as the same would be contrary to the governing policy. It
is a settled principle of law that a contractual appointee does not have a vested right to renewal or
continuation unless such right is specifically conferred by statute or policy, which is not the case
herein. However, this Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners
that similarly situated persons have been permitted to continue despite identical circumstances.
Furthermore, a perusal of the Government Order dated 31.01.2013 does not specifically stipulate in
Clause-6 that upon reduction of students strength below the prescribed limit, the services of parttime instructors shall, mandatorily not be continued.
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. If a school loses students strength, it may be considered as a failure on the part of entire
teaching staff and not only on the part of part-time instructors. Thus, to achieve the real object of
the RTE Act, 2009, facilities in Government institutions should be improved to make them more
competitive with private institutions, which would surely be helpful in maintaining students
strength. Solely, a part-time instructor be not held responsible for reduction in students strength.
His/ her role is to impart teaching to the students and not to manage other institutional affairs, thus,
the disengagement of a part-time instructor on the ground of drop in numbers of students is not
only arbitrary but also unjust as there are several other factors also, which may often be out of his/
her control and contribute in declining students strength.

21. Although no enforceable right of renewal accrues to the petitioners where the foundational
condition of student strength of 100 or more is not satisfied, yet in light of the apparent
inconsistency in implementation and in order to ensure fairness in administrative action, it would
be appropriate to remit the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration.

22. Accordingly, the orders impugned dated 20.02.2017 and 16.03.2018 are quashed. The
concerned competent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh, in
accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove as well as the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare
Association (supra) and Jaggo (supra), and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period
of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

23. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.

24. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 386
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ- B No. 6873 of 1979
With
Writ-B No. 5560 of 1979 & 4008 of 1979

Sarju & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether sale deeds executed by the mother, acting as guardian of her minor sons, in respect of
their shares in ancestral holdings without permission of the competent court and not for the