By the Court.—Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A.M. Tripathi, Sri Virender Nath Verma on behalf of the respondents.

2. By means of present special appeal, the order dated 23.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1251(SS) of 2009 (Nagesh Singh v. State of U.P. and others) is under challenge.

3. Factual matrix in brief of the present case are that in the State of Uttar Pradesh in order to provide Basic Education, a project/scheme has been initiated known as ‘Serv Shiksha Abhiyan’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘scheme’) which is to be implemented in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh. In order to implement the Scheme, one of the decision taken by the State Government is to appoint a person on the post of District Co-ordinator (construction).

4. Accordingly, for the District Sultanpur an advertisement was issued by the Director(opposite party No. 2) to appoint a person on the contract basis on the post of District Coordinator(construction) in order to look after the construction work to be carried out for the implementation the Scheme, the said appointment is to be made through District Level Committee consisting of the following members:

1. District Magistrate

2. District Basic Education Officer, member secretary

3. District Social Welfare Officer

4. Executive Engineer PWD, member

5. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner and other candidates submitted their candidature and thereafter the petitioner was selected and an order dated 13.2.2007 was issued appointing him on the post of District Coordinator(Construction), Sultanpur on ad-hoc basis for a fixed term of one year and the petitioner joined his duties accepting the term of his appointment order, thereafter the said contract of appointment was extended time and again and the last extension was given with effect from 13.2.2008 for a period of one year.

6. While the petitioner was working and discharging his duties, an inspection was done in respect to the construction work in Primary School and High School which were constructed in Block Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur, as per the submission made on behalf of the appellant, the place where the work was performed falls under the legislative Constituency of one Sri O.P. Singh, M.L.A. who submitted a report dated 6.7.2009 against him in respect to some alleged defect and irregularities in the construction of the aforesaid schools and taking into consideration the same, the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 26.8.2009.

7. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition No. 5538 of 2009 (Nagesh Singh v. State of U.P. and others) on 4.9.2009, disposed off with the following directions :

“The contention of petitioner is that the term of petitioner has been renewed but on the basis of complaint, the order impugned has been passed. Further submission has been made that in view of letter dated 8th December, 2008, Director of Education (Basic) has power to pass appropriate orders terminating the term of petitioner but Basic Shiksha Adhikari has passed an order, therefore, the order impugned is bad. After consideration of submission made by petitioner, I am of view that admittedly, appointment of petitioner is on contract basis for a period of one year subject to renewal. The appointment of petitioner has not been made under any relevant Rules. Therefore, if order terminating the contract has been passed that cannot be said to be illegal. In view of aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. However, dismissal of the present writ petition will not come in the way of petitioner to approach respondent No. 2 regarding his grievances, which have been stated in the present writ petition.”

8. Order dated 4.9.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 5538 was challenged by way of Special Appeal No. 667 of 2009 by the appe