SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) IN all these matters, the petitioners were engaged as Lab Technicians/Sputum Microscopist/Tuberculosis Health Visitor (TBHV) for a period of one year and after completion of their tenure, have not been engaged for subsequent period, hence they have sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order declining to grant extension/renewal of tenure and have also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to continue the peti­tioners as Lab Technicians/Sputum Microscopist/TBHV so long as the scheme continues.
(2.) THERE are three petitioners in writ petition No. 21627 of 2008, namely Vivek Kumar Misra, Dhananjay and Onkar Nath Singh. The Government of India launched the scheme at National Level known as "Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme" which is to be implemented at District level through Tuberculosis Control Society. The scheme was initially launched for a particular period which was extended from time to time and presently the Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi's letter dated 6.1.2006, the same is said to have been ex­tended up to September, 2010. In furtherance of the aforesaid scheme on 6th September, 2006, an advertisement was issued by the District Level Committee inviting applications for the post of Lab Technicians/Sputum Microscopist/TBHV. The said petitioners applied for the same and vide letter dated 5.2.2007 they were appointed on contract basis. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were appointed vide order dated 5.2.2007 on contract basis while the petitioner No. 1 was appointed vide order dated 28.2.2007. They were required to execute contract for appoint­ment on standard form showing that the period of contract was 1.3.2007 to 29.2.2008. It also provided that renewal would depend on good performance and mutual agreement. The contract having completed on 29.2.2008, the respon­dents decided not to renew the contract of the petitioners and advertised the vacancy vide advertisement dated 19.4.2008/20.4.2008 (Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition). The other petitioners were also appointed in the same manner and have not been allowed renewal except Writ Petition No. 26690 of 2007, where the engagement was purely stop-gap. It is contended that once the petitioners' con­tract was renewable the respondents could not have denied renewal of the peti­tioners without assigning any reasons. It is also contended that some other persons have been granted renewal, therefore, it is arbitrary on the part of the re­spondents not to renew petitioners' contract and to proceed for fresh selections. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners' Counsel on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 16081 of 2006 (Amit Kumar Dwivedi v. State of UP. and another) decided on 27.3.2006; 50614 of 2006 (Hridayesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 13.9.2006 and the Apex Court's decision in Dr. V.L. Chandra and others v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others, AIR 1990 SC 1670; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 1628 and U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey and others, 2007 (7) Supreme 374.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.;