# Suneeta Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 71
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4845 of 2021
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suneeta-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47466
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ
-
Maintainability
-
Contractual
appointment - Termination - Impugned
order passed by the State - Interference
with by the Court, when called for -
Principle laid down - Held, all the writ
petitioners assail actions of respondents
who
are
undisputedly
State.
The
impugned actions have been taken in the
course of implementation of a scheme
which seeks to extend and implement the
constitutional
promise
of
providing
elementary education. It would be too late
in the day for the Court to shut its eyes to
the well-established principle that all
actions of the State are liable to be tested
on the constitutional principle of fairness.
Consequently, the Court finds itself unable
to
countenance
the
broadly
stated
proposition that the writ petitions would
not be maintainable per se. (Para 48)
B. Service Law - Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan -
Contract of service - Universal principle of
its being not enforceable - Court laid
down three exceptions, when contract of
service can be enforceable
- These
exceptions are (a) where a civil servant is
removed from service in violation of
Article 311 or a law made under Article
309 of the Constitution (b) where a
workman is removed in violation of
protections
accorded
by
industrial
legislation and (c ) where an employee of
a body is dismissed in breach of a statute
or a statutory rule. It is only in these three
exceptional circumstances that Courts can
enter declarations of the termination
being
void
or
invalid
and
direct
reinstatement - Held, the Court fails to
recognise
an
inherent
right
in
the
petitioners to be continued as full time
teachers
even
though
their
initial
engagement was on the basis of their
educational
qualifications
to
teach
a
subject which is no longer earmarked or
treated as a compulsory or primary topic.
(Para 50 and 60)
Eight Writ Petitions dismissed; Counter
affidavit called in Writ A No. 4882 of 2021.
(E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,736 of 103,437. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39736 for what follows._

9 All. Suneeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
71
of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the amount is deposited. The
amount already deposited be deducted from
the amount to be deposited.

20. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Smt.
Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs. The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in
2007 (2) GLH 291, the total amount of
interest, accrued on the principle amount of
compensation is to be apportioned on
financial year to financial year basis and if
the interest payable to claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
Rs.
50,000/-,
Insurance Company/owner is/are entitled to
deduct appropriate amount under the head
of ''Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s
194A(3)(ix) of the Income Tax At, 1961
and if the amount of interest does not
exceeds Rs. 50,000/- in any financial year,
registry of the Tribunal is directed to allow
the claimant to withdraw the amount
without producing the certificate from the
concerned Income-Tax Authority. The
aforesaid view has been reiterated by this
High Court in Review Application No.1 of
2020 in First Appeal From Order No. 23 of
2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari
Singh and another) and in First Appeal
From Order No. 2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari
Sharma Vs. Chola Mandlam M.S. General
Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.03.2021
while disbursing the amount.

21.

Fresh
award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein. The Tribunal in the State shall
follow the direction of this Court as herein
aforementioned as far as disbursement is
concerned,
it
should look into
the
condition of the litigant and the pendency
of the matter and not blindly apply the
judgment of A.V. Padma . The same is to
be applied looking to the facts of each
fees, if any. Considering the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of A.V. Padma Vs. Venugopal 2012 (1)
GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is
not passed because applicants/claimants
are neither illiterate of rustic villagers.

22. We are thankful to Sri Ram
Singh,Amit Kumar
Singh
and
Vijay
Prakash Mishra, Advocates for getting the
matter decided promptly.

23. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the Tribunal.
----------
(2021)09ILR A71
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, .J.

Writ A No. 4845 of 2021
AND
Writ A No. 4571 of 2021
AND
Writ A No. 4882 of 2021
AND
Writ A No. 5728 of 2021
AND
Writ A No. 5914 of 2021
AND
Writ A No. 6966 of 2021
AND
Writ A No. 8595of 2021
AND
Writ A No. 6716 of 2021
AND
Writ A No. 8587 of 2021

Suneeta Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.P. Singh, Sri Yadvendra Pratap Singh
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Durga Singh, Sri Syed Nadeem
Ahmad

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ
-
Maintainability
-
Contractual
appointment - Termination - Impugned
order passed by the State - Interference
with by the Court, when called for -
Principle laid down - Held, all the writ
petitioners assail actions of respondents
who
are
undisputedly
State.
The
impugned actions have been taken in the
course of implementation of a scheme
which seeks to extend and implement the
constitutional
promise
of
providing
elementary education. It would be too late
in the day for the Court to shut its eyes to
the well-established principle that all
actions of the State are liable to be tested
on the constitutional principle of fairness.
Consequently, the Court finds itself unable
to
countenance
the
broadly
stated
proposition that the writ petitions would
not be maintainable per se. (Para 48)
B. Service Law - Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan -
Contract of service - Universal principle of
its being not enforceable - Court laid
down three exceptions, when contract of
service can be enforceable
- These
exceptions are (a) where a civil servant is
removed from service in violation of
Article 311 or a law made under Article
309 of the Constitution (b) where a
workman is removed in violation of
protections
accorded
by
industrial
legislation and (c ) where an employee of
a body is dismissed in breach of a statute
or a statutory rule. It is only in these three
exceptional circumstances that Courts can
enter declarations of the termination
being
void
or
invalid
and
direct
reinstatement - Held, the Court fails to
recognise
an
inherent
right
in
the
petitioners to be continued as full time
teachers
even
though
their
initial
engagement was on the basis of their
educational
qualifications
to
teach
a
subject which is no longer earmarked or
treated as a compulsory or primary topic.
(Para 50 and 60)
Eight Writ Petitions dismissed; Counter
affidavit called in Writ A No. 4882 of 2021.
(E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Roychan Abraham Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2019
(3) ADJ 391 (FB)
2. Rajesh Bhardwaj Vs U.O.I. 2019(2) ADJ 830
3. Smt. Sheela Devi & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2010 (5) ADJ 86 (FB)
4. Ram Prasad Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2018 SCC
OnLine All 5886
5. Sonu Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2019 SCC
OnLine 4740
6. M.K. Gandhi & ors.Vs Director of Education;
2005 (4) ESC 2265
7. Ramakrishna Mission & anr. Vs Kago Kunya &
ors. (2019) 16 SCC 303
8. Ram Niwas Sharma Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2020) 4
ADJ 166
9. Writ A No. 4789 of 2020; Bruce Henderson Vs
St. of U.P. & 9 ors. decided on 10 September 2020
10. Special Appeal Defective No. 1033 of 2020;
Henderson Vs St. of U.P. & 9 ors. decided on 13
April 2021
11.
K.Krishnamacharyulu
&
ors.
Vs
Sri
Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering &
anr.; [(1997) 3 SCC 571
12. Civil Appeal No. 11303 of 2011; Gridco
Limited & anr. Vs Sri Sadananda Doloi & ors.
13. Bharati Reddy Vs St. of Karn. & ors. [(2018)
12 SCC 61
14. Civil Appeal No. 5654 of 2019; Maharashtra
Chess Association Vs U.O.I. & ors.
15. Dr. Vandana Vahistha Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2018(4) ADJ 819 (FB)
16. Kailash Singh Vs Mayo College; (2018) 18
SCC 216
(Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsels for the
petitioners, Sri Yatindra, Sri Pankaj Kumar
9 All. Suneeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
73
Tyagi, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sri
Harshvardhan Gupta, Sri Ram Vilas Yadav,
Sri Amit Shukla, Sri Santosh Kumar, Sri
Ashok Kumar, Sri Syed Nadeem Ahmad
learned counsels for the Basic Education
Officers, Sri Durga Singh who appears for
the State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha
Abhiyan and Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey
learned Chief Standing Counsel alongwith
Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi for the State
respondents.

2. This batch of writ petitions have
been clubbed and heard for final disposal
collectively with the consent of parties.

A.
KASTURBA
GANDHI
BALIKA VIDYALAYA

3. All the petitioners were engaged by
the respondents in residential schools
established under the Kasturba Gandhi
Balika Vidyalaya Scheme1 launched by
the Union Government. In August 2004,
the Union Government launched a scheme
for setting up of residential schools upto the
upper primary level for girls belonging
predominantly to the SC, ST, OBC and
minorities in difficult areas. The scheme
provided for the establishment of schools in
educationally backward blocks. Priority
was to be accorded to the establishment of
these
schools
in
areas
having
a
concentration of SC, ST, OBC, minorities,
tribal population and where enrollment of
girls was found to be lagging. Areas with
low female literacy and areas with a large
number of small and scattered habitations
in
which
educational
facilities
were
nonexistent were also to be identified for
the purposes of establishment of schools
under the aforesaid scheme. With effect
from 01 April 2008, the criteria for
educationally backward block was revised
to include those blocks where rural female
literacy was below 30% and town/cities
having minority concentration. Initially the
scheme was run as a separate initiative of
the Union Government till it came to be
merged with the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan2
with effect from 01 April 2007. With the
promulgation of the Right to Education
Act, 20093 and the adoption of the
framework for implementation of SSA
being revised, the scheme and its objectives
were revised to bring it in tune and
harmony with the right and entitlement of
children as envisaged under the RTE. In the
State of U.P., the U.P. Education For All4
society came to be formed in 1993 to
oversee the field of Basic Education. The
KGBV
scheme
is
presently
being
administered by this entity.

B. THE SCHEME AND POLICY
DIRECTIVES

4. The Scheme is based on two basic
models (i) schools with a hostel for 100
girls and (ii) schools with hostel for 50
girls. Various Government Orders and
directives of the Union Government have
come to be issued from time to time in
order to ensure a uniform implementation
of the scheme throughout the country. The
aforesaid
Government
Orders
and
directives apart from laying down norms
for infrastructure and facilities in those
residential schools also lay in place various
stipulations relating to issues such as
curriculum and the appointment of teachers
and other staff. In terms of the policy
directives the schools are to be managed by
a Warden along with a complement of
support staff and instructions are to be
imparted by full time and part time
teachers. For the purposes of the present
batch of writ petitions, the directives and
orders issued from time to time may be
viewed commencing from the Government
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Order dated 29 July 2013. For the purposes
of selection of teaching and non-teaching
staff, the aforesaid Government Order
provided for the constitution of a District
Selection Committee. The Government
Order while prescribing the nature of staff
and the subjects to be taught provided thus:
-

"2. पदोिं का नववरणः

कस्तूरबा गािंधी बानलका नवद्यालय के शैक्षनणक व
नशक्षणोत्तर कनमायोिं के चयन में पदोिं का ननधाारण ननम्नानुसार
प्रस्तानवत हैः-

ि०
सिं०
पद का नाम
पदोिं की सिंख्या
मॉडल-I
(100 बानलकाओिं हेतु)
मॉडल-II
(50
बानलकाओिं
हेतु)
1.
वाडान
1
1
2.
र्ुल टाइम टीचर
4
3
3.
पाटाटाइम टीचर
4
3
4.
एकाउिंटेन्ट
1
1
5.
रसोइया
1
1
6.
सहायक रसोइया
2
1
7.
चौकीदार
1
1
8.
चपरासी
1
1
कुल योग
15
12

इन पदोिं के सापेक्ष Warden-cum- teacher
को सन्तम्मनलत करते हुये मॉडल-I कस्तूरबा गाूँधी
बानलका नवद्यालयोिं में नवर्यवार नशक्षकोिं की
व्यवस्था ननम्नवत की जायेगीः-

गनणत(पी०सी०एम०)

 01

नवज्ञान (पी०सी०बी०)

 01

समानजक नवर्य

(भूगोल, इनतहास एविं नागररक शास्त्र) 01

नहन्दी, सिंस्कृत

 01

अिंग्रेजी

 01

उदूा

 01

कम्प्यूटर

 01

स्काउट गाइड एविं शाररररक नशक्षा, कला

िाफ्ट एविं सिंगीत

 02

इसी प्रकार मॉडल -II के कस्तूरबा गाूँधी
बानलका नवद्यालयोिं में नवर्यवार नशक्षकोिं की

व्यवस्था ननम्नवत की जायेगीः-

गनणत(पी०सी०एम०)

 01

नवज्ञान (पी०सी०बी०)

 01

समानजक नवर्य

(भूगोल, इनतहास एविं नागररक शास्त्र) 01

भार्ा

 02

कम्प्यूटर

 01

स्काउट गाइड एविं शाररररक नशक्षा, कला

िाफ्ट एविं सिंगीत

 01

5. Setting forth the details with
respect
to
the
curriculum
and
the
qualification of staff, the Government
Order provided as follows: -

"बेनसक नशक्षा पररर्द द्वारा उच्च
प्राथनमक स्तर पर ननधााररत पाठ्यिम के सभी
नवर्य यथा नहन्दी, अिंगेजी, सिंस्कृत/उदूा, गनणत
(अिंकगनणत, बीजगनणत, ज्यानमनत) सामानजक
नवर्य(इनतहास, भूगोल तथा नागररक शास्त्र),
कला/सिंगीत/वानणज्य, गृह नशल्प, शारीररक
नशक्षा, खेल तथा योगासन, स्काउनटिंग एड
गाइनडिंग, नैनतक नशक्षा, पयाावरणीय नशक्षा तथा
कम्प्यूटर नशक्षा आनद के नलए नवर्यवार नशक्षकोिं
का चयन इस प्रकार नकया जायेगा नक सभी
नवर्योिं का अध्यापन गुणवत्तपरक हो तथा पाठ्य
सहगामी नियाओिं का सिंचालन भी प्रभावी ढिंग से
हो।

वाडान नजस नवर्य की होगी उस
नवर्य हेतु अलग से नशक्षका का चयन नहीिं नकया
जायेगा। चयन सनमनत अनुमन्य पदोिं पर चयन के
समय नवर्योिं का ध्यान रखेगी। मॉडल- I के
नवद्यालय में गनणत एविं नवज्ञान हेतु प्रस्तानवत 02
नशक्षकोिं में से यथा सिंभव 01 पूणाकानलक नशक्षक
तथा 01 अिंशकानलक नशक्षक होगा। यनद मॉडल-
9 All. Suneeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
75
I
का
नवद्यालय
अल्पसिंख्यक
बाहुल्य
नवकासखड/ शहरी क्षेत्र में न्तस्थत न हो तो
स्काउट- गाइड एविं शारीररक नशक्षा कला काफ्ट
एविं सिंगीत के नलए प्रस्तानवत 02 नशक्षकोिं में से
यथा सिंभव (1 पूणाकानलक नशक्षक तथा 01
अिंशकानलक नशक्षक होगा।)

3. अहाताः

वाडेन एविं नशक्षक के पदोिं के नलये
ननधााररत योग्यता उच्च प्राथनमक स्तर की
टी०ई०टी० एविं प्रनशनक्षत स्नातक होगी। प्रनशक्षण
उपानध के अिगात एन०सी०टी०ई० से मान्य
बी०एड तथा उसके समकक्ष एल०टी० इत्यानद
प्रनशक्षण को सन्तम्मनलत नकया जायेगा।

कम्प्यूटर नशक्षक के नलए प्रानशनक्षत
स्नातक होना अननवाया है। प्रनशक्षण उपानध के
अिगात एन०सी०टी०ई० से मान्य बी०एड तथा
उसके समकक्ष एल०टी० इत्यानद प्रनशक्षण
सन्तम्मनलत है। इसके अनतररि कम्प्यूटर नशक्षण
हेतु पी०जी०डी०सी०ए०/बी०सी०ए०/बी०एस०सी०
कम्प्यूटर
साइिंस
अथवा
स्नातक
सनहत
डी०ओ०ई०ए०सी०सी० या समक्ष सिंस्था से 'ओ
लेवल'/ए लेवल नडप्लोमा आनद शैनक्षक योग्यता भी
वािंनित होगी। कम्प्यूटर नशक्षक नजस नवर्य से
स्नातक होगा। उस नवर्य हेतु अलग से नशक्षक
चयननत नहीिं नकया जायेगा।

कला, काफ्ट एविं सिंगीत आनद नवर्योिं
के नलए शैनक्षक योग्यता स्नातक उपानध सनहत
प्रनशक्षण उपानध होगी तथा गृह नवज्ञान के नशक्षक
का पद कला, काफ्ट एविं सिंगीत के पद के
अिगात ही माना जायेगा।

बी०पी०एड०,
सी०पी०एड०,
डी०पी०एड० तथा व्यायाम रि आनद उपानधयाूँ
केवल शारीररक नशक्षा के अध्यापन हेतु मान्य
होगी नकिु शारीररक नशक्षा पद पर चयन हेतु
बी०पी०एड० सी०पी०एड० तथा डी०पी०एड०
अभ्यानथायोिं हेतु टी०ई०टी० अननवाया नहीिं होगी।"

6. In terms of the scheme, all
appointments of teachers, be it full time or
part time, was to be on contractual basis for
a period of 11 months and 29 days. Those
contracts were renewable subject to the
authorities being satisfied with the work
and conduct of teachers. Dealing with the
issues of renewal and termination of
contract, the Government Order made the
following provisions: -

"8. नवीनीकरणः

शैनक्षक सत्र में कस्तूरबा गािंधी
बानलका नवद्यालय में कायारत शैक्षनणक एविं
नशक्षणेत्तर कनमायोिं का सेवा अनुबि 11 माह 29
नदन के नलए नकया जायेगा। तात्पया यह है नक
अगले वर्ा सिंनवदा नवीनीकरण में एक नदन का
अिराल रखा जायेगा।

कायारत
नशक्षकोिं/नशक्षणेत्तर
कमाचाररयोिं के काया एविं व्यवहार का वानर्ाक
मूल्यािंकन वाडेन द्वारा नकया जयेगा तथा वाडेन
के काया एविं आचरण का वानर्ाक मूल्यािंकन
जनपदीय सिंचालन सनमनत के सदस्य सनचव द्वारा
नकया जायेगा। स्वयिंसेवी सिंस्था/मनहला समाख्या
द्वारा सिंचानलत नवद्यालयोिं में कायारत वाडेन के
काया एविं आचरण का वानर्ाक मूल्यािंकन सिंस्था
के अनधकृत पदानधकारी द्वारा नकया जायेगा एविं
आख्या सदस्य सनचव, जनपदीय चयन सनमनत
के माध्यम से नजलानधकारी के अनुमोदनाथा
प्रस्तुत की जायेगी।

यनद
कायारत
वाडेन/नशक्षकोिं/नशक्षणेत्तर कमाचाररयोिं का काया
एविं व्यवहार सिोर्जनक पाया जाता है, तो
अगले सत्र के नलए उनकी सिंनवदा का
नजलानधकारी के अनुमोदनोपराि नवीनीकरण
नकया जायेगा।

सी कमी की सेवाएिं सिोर्जनक नहीिं
पाये जाने की दशा में मुल्यािंकनकताा अनधकारी
द्वारा सिंबिंनधत कमी को अपना पक्ष प्रस्तुत करने
का पयााप्त अवसर उपलब्ध कराने के उपराि
प्राप्त उत्तर के आधार पर पत्रावली में उन
पररन्तस्थयोिं का साक्ष्य सनहत स्पि आकलन नकया
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
जायेगा। तथा यनद सिंनवदा का नवीनीकरण नहीिं
नकया
जाना
है
तो
युन्तियुि
प्रस्ताव
नजलानधकारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत नकया जायेगा।

सेवा अनुबि में यह प्रानवधान भी
नकया जाये नक यनद उसकी सेवाएिं अनुपयुि
पायी जाती है तो उन्हें एक माह का नोनटस दकर
सेवाओिं को समाप्त कर नदया जायेगा। गम्भीर
पररन्तस्थनतयोिं/नवत्तीय
अननयनमतता/गिंभीर
अनुशासनहीनता की न्तस्थनत में नबना कोई नोनटस
के यनद सेवा समाप्त करने की आवश्यकता
प्रतीत होती है तो नजला बेनसक नशक्षा अनधकारी
द्वारा पुि प्रमाणोिं सनहत कायावाही हेतु प्रस्ताव
नजलानधकारी के अनुमोदनाथा प्रस्तुत नकया
जायेगा। उि समस्त कायावाही नजलानधकारी
की अनुमनत से की जायेगी।

कस्तूरबा गािंधी बानलका नवद्यालय में
चयननत शैक्षनणक एविं नशक्षणोत्तर कनमायोिं से
प्रनत वर्ा सिंनवदा नवीनीकरण हेतु अनुबि पत्र
भराया जायेगा। सेवा अनुबि के नवीनीकरण
की कायावाही प्रनत वर्ा 30 अप्रैल से प्रारम्भ करते
हुए 30 मई तक पूणा की जायेगी। काया मूल्यािंकन
के आधार पर अनुबि समाप्त होने की दशा में
ररि पद पर चयन की कायावाही नवीन सत्र
आरिंभ होने के पूवा की जायेगी।"

7. The aforesaid basic pattern was
reiterated in the Government Order of 30
June 2015. More recently on 14 July 2020,
a fresh Government Order came to be
issued. Based on various inputs which were
received by the State Government, it was
noted that various irregularities appeared to
have been committed in the selection and
appointment of teachers. For instance, it
was noted that in many instances more than
one teacher had come to be engaged for the
same subject. It was further found that
appointments had come to be made without
adhering to the requirements of curriculum
as prescribed by the Basic Education Board
for upper primary institutions. It was also
noted
that
in
various
institutions
appointment had been made without
bearing in mind the clarifications issued by
the
Ministry
of
Human
Rights
Development in the Union Government on
24 March 2014 with reference to Sections
19 and 25 of the RTE Act 2009. Upon
noticing the aforesaid, that Government
Order while dealing with the issue of more
than one teacher having been engaged to
impart instructions in one subject, made the
following provisions: -

"(i) के०जी०बी०वी० में एक नवर्य के
एक
से
अनधक
नशक्षक/नशनक्षका
का
चयन/सिंनवदा की गयी है।

वाडेन/पूणाकानलक
नशनक्षका-
कस्तूरबा गॉधी आवसीय बानलका नवद्यालयोिं मे
वाडेन एविं पूणा कानलक नशनक्षका का पद मनहला
अभ्यथी हेतु ननयत है। इनकी शैनक्षक योग्यता
प्रनशनक्षत स्नातक थी। उ०प्र० शासन के पत्रािंक
के०जी०बी०वी०/3-2/1916/2013-14
नदनािंक
29-07-2013
द्वारा
शैनक्षक
योग्यता
उच्च
प्राथनमक स्तर की टी०ई०टी० एविं प्रनशनक्षत
स्नातक ननधााररत की गयी है। कस्तूरबा गॉधी
आवसीय बानलका नवद्यालय बेनसक नशक्षा
पररर्द द्वारा सिंचानलत उच्च प्राथनमक नवद्यालयोिं
में ननधााररत पाठ्यिम के समरूप है। अतः
ननःशुल्क और अननवाया बाल नशक्षा का अनधकार
अनधननयम, 2009 की धारा 19 एविं 25 में वनणात
मान एविं मानको की अनुसूची के आलोक में
वनणात नवर्योिं में वाडेन कम नशनक्षका एविं
पूणाकानलक नशनक्षका की नवीन सिंनवदा की
जाये। यनद नकसी कस्तूरबा गाूँधी आवासीय
बानलका नवद्यालय में एक नवर्य के एक से
अनधक पूणा कानलक नशनक्षका या वाडान कायारत
हैं तो शासन के पत्र नदनॉक 29-07-2013 द्वारा
ननधााररत अहाता धाररत करने वाली नशनक्षकाओिं
की के०जी०बी०वी० में सेवा, अवनध/अनुभव के
आधार पर सिंकनलत सूची तैयार की जाये। उि
सूची में उच्च अनुभव धाररत करने वाली अभ्याथी
9 All. Suneeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
77
की
सबन्तित
के०जी०बी०वी०
में
पदस्थापन/नवीन
सिंनवदा
की
जाय,
यनद
सबन्तित नवर्य का जनपद में सिंचानलत अन्य
नकसी के०जी०बी०वी० में पद ररि हो तो
अवरोही िम में सिंकनलत सूची के अनुसार
सबन्तित वाडेन/नशनक्षका को समायोनजत नकया
जाये। उि जनपदीय सनमनत के प्रस्ताव के िम
में नजलानधकारी के अनुमोदनोपराि नवीन
सनवदा/पदस्थापन नकया जयेगा।"

8. Dealing with the issue of
curriculum, the Government Order noted:-

"(iii)
के०जी०बी०वी०
में
नशक्षक/नशनक्षका को मुख्य नवर्योिं यथा गनणत,
नवज्ञान, सामानजक नवर्य, भार्ा (नहन्दी एविं
सिंस्कृत) एविं अिंग्रेजी का पदस्थापन/नवीन सिंनवदा
वाडेन/र्ुल टाईम नशनक्षका में न करके
अिंशकानलक के पद पर तथा वाडेन/पूणा कानलक
नशनक्षका को पाठ्य सहगामी नवर्योिं यथा
कम्प्यूटर स्काउट गाइड एविं शारीररक नशक्षा
कला िाफ्ट एविं सिंगीत नवर्योिं पदस्थापन/नवीन
सिंनवदा के पद पर नकया गया है।

उल्लेखनीय है नक ननःशुल्क और
अननवाया बाल नशक्षा का अनधकार अनधननयम,
2009 की धारा 19 एविं 25 में वनणात मान एविं
मानको की अनुसूची में ननम्नवत् व्यावस्था
उन्तल्लन्तखत हैः-

िठी से आठवी कक्षा के नलए 1. कम
से कम प्रनत कक्षा एक नशक्षक, इस प्रकार का
होगा नक ननम्ननलन्तखत प्रत्येक के नलए कम से कम
नशक्षक हो-

(i) नवज्ञान एविं गनणत।

(ii) सामानजक अध्ययन।

(i) भार्ा।

2. प्रत्येक पैंतीस बालकोिं के नलए कम
से कम एक नशक्षक।

3. जहाूँ एक सौ से अनधक बालकोिं को
प्रवेश नदया गया है वहािं-

(i) एक पूणाकानलक प्रधान अध्यापक

(ii) ननम्ननलन्तखत के नलए अिंशकानलक
नशक्षक-

(अ) कला नशक्षा।

(आ) स्वास्थ और शाररररक नशक्षा।

(इ) काया नशक्षा।"

9. By a Government Order of 11
December 2020, the bifurcation of part
time and full time teachers across subjects
was provided for in the following terms:-

"उपरोि पदोिं के सापेक्ष नवीन चयन
मॉडल-I के कस्तूरबा गािंधी बानलका नवद्यालयोिं में
नवर्यवार व्यवस्था ननम्नवत् की जायेगीः-

धविय
पद
मॉडल- I हेिु पदों की संख्या
पूणाकानल
क
उदूा
अिंशकानल
क
गनणत
(पी०सी०एम०
वगा
से
प्रनशनक्षत
स्नातक
एविं
उच्च प्राथनमक
स्तर
की
टी०ई०टी०)

पूणाकानलक
01
-
-
नवज्ञान
(जेड०बी०सी०
वगा
से
प्रनशनक्षत
स्नातक
एविं
उच्च प्राथनमक
स्तर
की
टी०ई०टी०)
पूणाकानलक
01
-
-
भार्ा
(नहन्दी
एविं सिंस्कृत से
स्नातक
एविं
उच्च प्राथनमक
स्तर
की
टी०ई०टी०)
पूणाकानलक
01
-
-
समानजक
नवर्य (भूगोल,
इनतहास
एविं
नागररक शास्त्र
पूणाकानलक
01
-
-
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
में से नकसी
एक नवर्य से)

प्रनशनक्षत
स्नातक
एविं
उच्च प्राथनमक
स्तर
की
टी०ई०टी०

अिंग्रेजी (अिंग्रेजी
से स्नातक एविं
उच्च प्राथनमक
स्तर
की
टी०ई०टी०)
पूणाकानलक
01
-
-
उदूा - बी०ए०
उदूा नवर्य से
तथा एल०टी०
या बी०टी० या
बी०एड०
या
अन्य समकक्ष
नशक्षा
अथवा
नशक्षण
में
नडग्री
या
नडप्लोमा
उदूा
-
01
-
कम्प्यूटर
प्रनशनक्षत
स्नातक
अिंशकानलक
-
-
01
स्काउट गाइड
एविं शारीररक
नशक्षा-
बी०पी०एड०
सी०पी०एड
एविं
डी०पी०
एड०
आनद
उपानध
अिंशकानलक
-
-
01
कला,
िाफ्ट
एविं सिंगीत/गृह
नशल्प
अिंशकानलक
-
-
01
कुल पद

05
01
03

उपरोि पदोिं के सापेक्ष नवीन चयन
मॉडल- II के कस्तूरबा गािंधी बानलका नवद्यालयोिं
में नवर्यवार व्यवस्था ननम्नवत् की जायेगीः-
धविय
पद
मॉडल- I हेिु पदों की
संख्या
पूणाकानल
क
उदूा अिंशका
नलक
गनणत
(पी०सी०एम० पूणाकानलक
01
-
-
वगा
से
प्रनशनक्षत
स्नातक
एविं
उच्च
प्राथनमक
स्तर
की
टी०ई०टी०)
नवज्ञान (जेड०बी०सी०
वगा
से
प्रनशनक्षत
स्नातक
एविं
उच्च
प्राथनमक
स्तर
की
टी०ई०टी०)

पूणाकानलक
01
-
-
भार्ा (नहन्दी- सिंस्कृत
एविं
अिंग्रेजी
में
से
न्यूनतम एक वगा में
प्रनशनक्षत स्नातक एविं
उच्च प्राथनमक स्तर की
टी०ई०टी०)

पूणाकानलक
01
-
-
समानजक
नवर्य
(भूगोल, इनतहास एविं
नागररक शास्त्र में से
नकसी एक नवर्य से
प्रनशनक्षत स्नातक एविं
उच्च प्राथनमक स्तर की
टी०ई०टी०)
पूणाकानलक
01
-
-
उदूा - बी०ए० उदूा
नवर्य से तथा एल०टी०
या
बी०टी०
या
बी०एड०
या
अन्य
समकक्ष नशक्षा अथवा
नशक्षण में नडग्री या
नडप्लोमा
उदूा
-
01
-
कम्प्यूटर
प्रनशनक्षत
स्नातक

अिंशकानलक
-
-
01
स्काउट
गाइड
एविं
शारीररक
नशक्षा-
बी०पी०एड०
सी०पी०एड
एविं
डी०पी० एड० आनद
उपानध
अिंशकानलक
-
-
01
कला,
िाफ्ट
एविं
सिंगीत/गृह नशल्प
अिंशकानलक
-
-
01
कुल पद

04
01
03

10. The directions as contained in the
aforesaid Government Order presently hold
the field and have also been circulated by
the State Director constituted by the
9 All. Suneeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
79
UPEFA society under cover of its letter of
04 January 2021. The Government Orders
noted above while dealing with the issue of
qualification provided that for the post of
Warden-cum-Full
Time
Teacher
a
candidate must hold a TET certificate for
the upper primary level as well as a
graduation degree such as B.Ed. or other
qualification
recognised
as
equivalent
thereto by the NCTE. Those Government
Orders
further
prescribed
separate
qualifications for a teacher who may be
selected and appointed for teaching the
subjects of Computer, Art, Craft and
Music. For the aforesaid category of
teachers, it was clearly provided that they
must hold a graduation degree as well as a
training qualification duly recognised. The
Government Order of 29 July 2013
additionally specified that the subject of
Home Science would be treated as being
part of Art, Craft and Music. The aforesaid
Government Order also envisaged the
establishment
of
KGBVs
where
instructions in Urdu language may also be
imparted. Urdu as a subject was to be
taught in KGBVs which were situate in a
location which had a minority population
of 20% or more. The Government Order of
17
August
2013
prescribing
the
qualifications for an Urdu teacher made the
following provisions: -

"(क) भारत में नवनध द्वारा स्थानपत
नकसी नवश्वनवद्यालय से स्नातक की उपानध या
सरकार द्वारा उसके समकक्ष मान्यता प्राप्त कोई
उपानध, नजसमें एक नवर्य के रूप में उदूा रही
हो। परिु कोई अभ्यथी जो उदूा में उपयुाि
अहाता नहीिं रखता है, ननयुन्ति के नलये पात्र
होगा, यनद अभ्यथी उदूा नवर्य में स्नातकोत्तर
उपानध रखता हो।

(ख) सरकार द्वारा उदूा अध्यापन के
नलये प्रनशक्षण देने हेतु लखनऊ, आगरा मवाना
नजला मेरठ और सकलडीहा नजला चन्दौली में
स्थानपत नकसी प्रनशक्षण केन्द्रोिं में से नकसी एक
केन्द्र से बेनसक अध्यापक प्रमाण पत्र या सरकार
द्वारा उसके समक्ष मान्यता प्राप्त कोई अन्य
प्रनशक्षण अहाता या बेनसक अध्यापक प्रमाण पत्र
(बी०टी०सी०), नद्ववर्ीय बी०टी०सी०(उदूा) और
उ०प्र० सरकार या भारत सरकार द्वारा सिंचानलत
अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा उत्तीणा नकया हो।"

11. When these writ petitions came to
be preferred before the Court, one of the
contentions, which was raised by the
respondents, was with respect to their
maintainability.
It
was
principally
contended that since the appointment of the
petitioners was purely contractual, a writ
petition challenging either an order of
termination or variation in the terms of
appointment
would
not
lie.
Those
submissions were voiced based on the
decision rendered by the Full Bench of the
Court in Roychan Abraham v. State of
U.P. and Others5 and of the Division
Bench in Rajesh Bhardwaj V. Union of
India6.

12. Before, however, proceeding to
deal with the aforesaid objections, it would
be apposite to briefly notice the facts of
each case.

Writ-A No.4845 of 2021.

13. The petitioner challenges an order
of 13 November 2020 pursuant to which
she has been asked to exercise an option
whether she would be willing for the
renewal of her contract as a part time
teacher in the subject of Art, Craft and
Music.
The
petitioner
was
initially
appointed as a Warden-cum-Full Time
Teacher based on a graduation degree in
which her major was Home Science. The
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
writ petition also refers to the order of 14
July
2020
which
while
delineating
compulsory subjects provided:-

"(II) बेनसक नशक्षा पररर्द द्वारा
सिंचानलत उच्च प्राथनमक नवद्यालयोिं में ननधााररत
पाठयिम से इतर नवर्य धाररत करने वाले
नशक्षक/नशनक्षका का पदस्थापन/नवीन सिंनवदा की
गयी है, का सघन परीक्षण कर नलया जाये एविं
ननःशुल्क और अननवाया बाल नशक्षा का अनधकार
अनधननयम, 2009 की धारा 19 एविं 25 में वनणात
मान एविं मानकोिं को अनूसूची एविं राज्य
पररयोजना कायाालय के पत्र नदनािंक 13.08.2018
एविं 06.08.2019 के आलोक मे बेनसक नशक्षा
पररर्द द्वारा सिंचानलत उच्च प्राथनमक नवद्यालयोिं
मे ननधााररत पाठयिम के अनुसार ही कस्तूरबा
गािंधी बानलका नवद्यालयोिं हेतु पाठयिम/नवर्य के
नशक्षक उपरोि मानकानुसार उि जनपदीय
सनमनत के प्रस्ताव के िम मे नजलानधकारी के
अनुमोदनोपराि नवीन सिंनवदा/पदस्थापन नकया
जायेगा।

(III)
के०जी०बी०वी
मे
नशक्षक/
नशनक्षका को मुख्य नवर्योिं यथा गनणत, नवज्ञान,
सामानजक नवर्य, भार्ा (नहन्दी एविं सिंस्कृत) एविं
अिंग्रेजी का पदस्थापन/नवीन सिंनवदा वाडेन/र्ुल
टाईम नशनक्षका में न करके अिंशकानलक के पद
पर तथा वाडेन/पूणा कानलक नशनक्षका को पाठय
सहगामी नवर्योिं तथा कम्प्यूटर स्काउट गाइड एविं
शारीररक नशक्षा कला िाफ्ट एविं सिंगीत नवर्योिं
पदस्थापन/नवीन सिंनवदा के पद पर नकया गया है।

उल्लेखनीय है नक ननःशुल्क और
अननवाया बाल नशक्षा का अनधकार अनधननयम
2009 की धारा 19 एविं 25 मे वनणात मान एविं
मानको की अनुसूची मे ननम्नवत् व्यवस्था
उन्तल्लन्तखत हैः-

िठी से आठवी कक्षा के नलए 1. कम
से कम प्रनत कक्षा एक नशक्षक, इस प्रकार का
होगा नक ननम्ननलन्तखत प्रत्येक के नलए कम से कम
एक नशक्षक हो-

(I) नवज्ञान एविं गनणत।

(II) सामानजक अध्ययन।

(III) भार्ा।

2. प्रत्येक पैंतीस बालकोिं के नलए कम
से कम एक नशक्षक।

3.जहाूँ एक सौ से अनधक बालकोिं को
प्रवेश नदया गया है वहाूँ

(I) एक पूणाकानलक प्रधान
अध्यापक,

(II)
ननम्ननलन्तखत
के
नलए
अिंशकानलक नशक्षक (अ) कला नशक्षा।

(आ) स्वास्थ्य और शारीररक
नशक्षा।

(इ) काया नशक्षा। "

14. By the aforesaid Government
Order, Home Science as has been noted
above, came to be discontinued as a
primary subject and became part of Art,
Craft and Music. Although the contract of
the petitioner was renewed permitting her
to teach Hindi, the respondents upon
noticing the provisions made in the
directive of the State Director of 26
August 2020 restraining continuance of
teachers by permitting change in subjects
terminated her contract. By way of the
impugned directive she has now been
asked to exercise a choice of whether she
would be willing to continue as a part
time teacher in the subject Art, Music and
Craft.

Writ-A No.4571 of 2021.

15. In this petition also, the petitioner
assails an order of 19 November 2020
whereby the petitioner, who was initially
selected and appointed as a Warden, has
been downgraded to a part time teacher in
the subject of Art, Craft and Music.
Initially she was selected and appointed to
teach the subject Home Science.
9 All. Suneeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
81

Writ-A No.4882 of 2021.

16. The petitioner challenges the
order of the respondents refusing to renew
her contract of engagement. The petitioner
had initially been engaged as a part time
teacher in the subject of Music. Insofar as
her training qualifications were concerned,
she had relied upon a certificate of Sangeet
Prabhakar issued by the Prayag Sangeet
Samiti, Allahabad. The respondents have
taken the position that the aforesaid
training qualification is not recognised.
Consequently the impugned decision has
come to be made for the contract of the
petitioner not being renewed.

Writ-A No.5728 of 2021.

17. The petitioner, who holds the
degrees of B.Com, M.Com and B.Ed., was
engaged to teach the subject of Computer.
By a communication of 22 February 2021
the respondents have held that her contract
is not liable to be renewed since she does
not possess the qualifications prescribed for
teaching the aforesaid subject. It becomes
relevant to note that the petitioner was
appointed
as
a
full-time
teacher
in
Computers
based
on
a
Diploma
in
Computer Applications appearing at Page53 of the paperbook. However she did not
possess the O level certificate as required
and
prescribed
to
be
an
essential
qualification.

Writ-A No.5914 of 2021.

18. The petitioner who was engaged
as an Urdu teacher, challenges the order of
13 January 2021 by which her engagement
has come to be discontinued upon the
respondents finding that in the concerned
block the population of minorities was less
than 20%. Although learned counsel has
relief upon an extract from an unspecified
webpage
to
challenge
the
aforesaid
conclusion, the respondents have proceeded
on the basis of the certification apprising
them of the minorities there being below
20% in the concerned location.

Writ-A No.6966 of 2021.

19. The petitioner here was appointed
as a Computer Operator. He was engaged
through a service provider and placed to
discharge duties in connection with the
KGBV scheme under the respondents. His
engagement admittedly was through an
outsourcing agency. It was in the aforesaid
background that the respondents contend
that apart from the engagement being
contractual, there was no privity of contract
between the petitioner and the State so as to
warrant this Court entertaining the writ
petition.

Writ-A No.8595 of 2021.

20. The petitioner challenges the
order of 02 February 2021 passed by the
District Basic Education Officer rejecting
her objections to the engagement of the
fifth respondent. The respondents have
rejected
that
objection
holding
that
although both the fifth respondent and the
petitioner hold the requisite qualifications,
since the fifth respondent had been engaged
for a longer length in time, her absorption
is liable to be upheld in terms of the
provisions made under the Government
Order of 29 July 2013. The provisions of
the aforesaid government order were
neither questioned nor assailed.

Writ-A No.6716 of 2021.

21. The petitioner who was engaged
as an Urdu Teacher challenges the
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
validity of the decision of the Basic
Education
Officer
discontinuing
her
engagement on the ground that she did
not have Urdu as one of the subjects at
the Graduation level. The aforesaid
reasoning was assailed on the ground of
the same being in violation of a
Government Order of 05 September 2006
which had provided that for engagement
as an Urdu teacher it would be essential
for the candidate to have studied that
language in two out of the three
examinations
of
High
School,
Intermediate
and
Graduation.
The
respondents on the other hand rest their
case on the government order of 17
August 2013 the relevant part whereof
has been extracted hereinabove and
which had amended the government order
of 05 September 2006.

Writ-A No.8587 of 2021.

22. The petitioner who was engaged
as a Full Time Teacher-cum-Warden
challenges the order of 19 October 2020 by
which the respondents have held that
renewal cannot be granted since she did not
have Science as a subject at the graduation
level.

23. The facts of individual petition
noticed above evidence that the jurisdiction
of the Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution is sought to be invoked in
principally the following three situations.

A- Termination of contract.

B- Downgradation from a full
time to a part time teacher.

C- Variation of the terms of the
contract.

C. THE MAINTAINABILITY OF
THE WRIT PETITIONS

24. The principal objection which is
taken by the State respondents is that since
the terms and conditions of service of the
petitioners are governed purely by contract,
no writ petition would lie in light of the
decisions rendered in Rajesh Bhardwaj
and of the Full Bench in Roychan
Abraham. The submission essentially was
that a contract for personal service cannot
be enforced. It was submitted that if it be
the contention that the termination has been
affected in violation of the provisions made
in the contract, the only remedy available
to the petitioners would be to bring an
action
for
damages
for
wrongful
termination. It was contended that the
engagement of the petitioners was under a
scheme
formulated
by
the
Union
Government and governed solely by the
provisions made in various Government
Orders and directives referred to above. It
was in the aforesaid backdrop that it was
argued that the writ petitions would not be
maintainable and that in any case it was
liable to be dismissed with the reliefs as
prayed for being refused.

25. Before proceeding to deal with the
ratio of Roychan Abraham and Rajesh
Bhardwaj, it would be apposite for the
Court to note the judgment of the Full
Bench rendered in Smt. Sheela Devi and
another vs. State of U.P. and others7.
The Full Bench was constituted to consider
whether a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution would be maintainable at
the behest of an Angadwadi worker
appointed on a temporary basis by the State
upon payment of honorarium. The Full
Bench took note of the Integrated Child
Development Service Program run under
the auspices of the Union Government. It
found that the engagement of Angadwadi
workers was under the provisions of the
aforesaid scheme with those workers being
9 All. Suneeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
83
deployed at various Angadwadi centers
established throughout the country. After
noticing various decisions of the Supreme
Court dealing with the maintainability of a
writ petition directed against an action of
the Government or a body discharging a
public function, the Full Bench held thus:-

"26. The above decisions of the
Supreme Court clearly demonstrates that
the ambit and scope of Article 226 has been
liberalised, widened and expanded by the
Courts. A petition is maintainable if the
petitioner seeks relief in accordance with
law and his real grievance is against the
action or an order passed by a statutory
authority or an authority vested with
performance of public functions. In short a
writ petition would always be maintainable
under Article 226 of the Constitution
against an order passed by any person in
discharge of public duty or by public
authority
i.e.,
an
officer
of
the
Government."

26. It then proceeded to observe in
paragraph 44 as follows: -

"44. The issue is not as to
whether the appellants/petitioners would
succeed in the writ petitions and get the
desired relief but is altogether different as
to whether the petition is maintainable or
the appellants/petitioners are entitle to
invoke the writ jurisdiction. In our opinion
in view of the above discussion such a writ
petition
is
maintainable
and
the
appellants/petitioners
are
justified
in
invoking the extraordinary remedy on the
grounds permissible for judicial review,
though it may ultimately result in dismissal
on merits."

27. The Full Bench ultimately
recorded the following conclusions: -

"54. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, we answer the question
referred
to
us
in
favour
of
the
appellants/petitioners and hold that the
Anganwadi workers though appointed
under a scheme of the Government
notwithstanding that they are not holders of
civil posts are entitle to invoke the writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution against the order terminating
their services passed by the CDPO, a
Government
functionary
on
grounds
permissible for judicial review."

28. It becomes pertinent to note that
in Smt. Sheela Devi while noticing the
terms of the appointment of Angadwadi
workers, the Full Bench noted that although
their appointment was temporary and based
on the payment of an honorarium, those
workers were entitled to continue till the
age of 60 years subject to being found fit.
The engagement of these workers was thus
not based purely on a contract of service
which provided that the engagement was
terminable with notice. As was noted by
the Full Bench, these workers were entitled
to continue till they attained the age of 60
years unless the project itself came to be
abandoned.

29. Even before Rajesh Bhardwaj
came to be decided, a Division Bench in
Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and
others8 came to consider an issue whether
a contractual employee of UPSRTC could
claim regularization. Noticing that the
aforesaid contractual engagement was not
governed by any statutory regulations
framed by the Corporation, the Division
Bench held as follows:-

"12. Even otherwise, appellant's
appointment was contractual hence it
could not be enforced in a Court of law
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and that too in a writ petition. In other
words, when right to continue is not
based either on the statute or the
Constitution or otherwise in law, then a
writ
of
mandamus
compelling
the
authorities to continue appellant in
employment cannot be issued since for
issuance of writ of mandamus, condition
precedent is the existence of a legal right
upon the aggrieved person and a legal
obligation
corresponding
upon
the
authorities concerned. In Uma Devi
(Supra), Apex Court, considering the
question as to when a writ of mandamus
can be issued by the Court directing
employer either to absorb the employee in
permanent service or to allow him to
continue, has held:

"In order to that a mandamus may
issue to compel the authorities to do
something, it must be shown that the statute
imposes a legal duty on the authority and
the aggrieved party had a legal right under
the statute or rule to enforce it." (emphasis
added)

13. Even otherwise, enforcement
of contract of personal service in a writ
jurisdiction is not permissible except of
certain limited circumstances. In Roshan
Lal Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1967
SC 1889, drawing distinction between
employment under a contract and status, it
was held that there is no vested contractual
right in regard to terms of service where
employment is one of the status. The origin
of Government service is contractual.
There is an offer and acceptance in every
case. But once appointed to the post or
office, the Government servant acquires a
status and his rights and obligations are no
longer determined by consent of both
parties, but by statute or statutory rules
which
may
be
framed
and
altered
unilaterally by Government. In other
words, legal position of a Government
servant is more one of status than of
contract. The hall-mark of status is the
attachment to a legal relationship of rights
and duties imposed by public law and not
by mere agreement of the parties.