Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record.
(2.) FACTS in brief as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner are that petitioner /Sri Sanjay Kumar initially appointed as Senior Field Assistant Silk Production in project known as U.P. Diversified Agriculture Support Project (hereafter referred to as UPDASP) by means of the order dated 22.04.1999 (Annexure No. 1) which is a contractual appointment for a period of two years, thereafter extended upto 06.05.2001 and after the said period he was not allowed to work. in spite of the fact that the scheme known as UPDASP for which petitioner was appointed as contractual employee is continuing uptill 2013. Accordingly, Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner submits that once the scheme in question is up to 2013 then there is no justification or reason on the part of the respondent not to extend the term of the contractual appointment of the petitioner, hence the action on the part of the respondents thereby not extending the same w.e.f. 06.05.2001 is an action which is wholly arbitrary in nature. In support of his case Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner rely on the judgment given by Ho'ble the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, H.S.E.B. Vs. Suresh And others, : (1999) 3 SCC 601. 3. In view of the abovesaid facts, the question which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the petitioner who is appointed on contractual basis has got any right to get his contractual appointment, extended/ continued till the scheme if project known as UPASP is enforce (2013) even after the expiry of the term of his contractual employment.
(3.) ANSWER to the above said question finds place in the following decisions.;