Point of Law: Court in exercise of its extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no power to re-write contract or to compel the State to enter into an agreement.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Surendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

Brief facts of the case

2. This special appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 9.8.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ -A No.6652 of 2021 which is reproduced below:-

“Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

The contractual engagement of the petitioner has been brought to an end by the respondents. Quite apart from the reasons which have been taken into consideration, the principal question which arises is whether the Court should consider the grant of a prerogative writ consequent to the contractual appointment of the petitioner having been brought to an end. The Court in this regard bears in mind the principles enunciated by a Division Bench of the Court in Rajesh Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India [2019 (2) ADJ 830]. Undisputedly, the Court cannot by way of a writ command the respondents to either renew or perpetuate the contractual engagement of the petitioner. In any case and since it is not governed by any statutory rules or regulations, the Court cannot issue a declaration invalidating the termination or direct reinstatement.

Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.”

3. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid Writ -A No. 6652 of 2021 challenging the order dated 6.5.2021. The operative portion of the impugned order in the writ petition is reproduced below:-

^^mDrkuqlkj ikfjr funs'kks ds Øe es tuin Lrj ij dEi;wVj vkijsVj dk in l`ftr u gksus] jkT; ejusxk izdks"B y[kuÅ ls eujsxk lafonk dfeZ;ks ds lh/ks muds [kkrs es ekuns; gLrkarfjr fd;s tkus ,oa tuin Lrj ij dk;Zfgr es vko';drk u gksus ds n`f"Vxr Jh iz'kkUr 'kqDyk dh lafonk vof/k@vuqca/k fnukad 31-08-2020 dks lekIr gksus ij vkxs lafonk ds uohuhdj.k fd;s tkus dh ftyk dk;ZØe leUo;d@ftykf/kdkjh egksn; }kjk fnukad 31-01-2021 dks Lohd`fr iznku ugh dh xbZ gS] ftlds QyLo:i fnukad 31-08-2020 ds i'pkr muls vkxs dk;Z ugha fy;k x;k gS] D;ksfd u gh tuin Lrj ij dEi;wVj vkijsVj dk 'kklu }kjk in l`ftr gS vkSj u gh Jh 'kqDyk dh fof/kd izfØ;k ¼p;u lfefr½ ls fu;qfDr dh xbZ gSA
vr% ekŒ mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn es Jh iz'kkUr 'kqDyk cuke mŒizŒ ljdkj ,oa 06 vU; ds uke ls ;ksftr laŒ ,&1936@2021 ds lkFk layXu izR;kosnu fnukad 25-09-2020 ij dk;Zokgh djus gq,s izR;kosnu dks ,rn }kjk fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA^^

4. It would be relevant to mention that the petitioner voluntarily and with eyes wide open entered into an agreement dated 31.3.2020 for his engagement on honorarium basis @ Rs.11,200/-per month for the specific period of 2.3.2020 to 31.8.2020 (six months) or till continuation of the scheme, whichever is earlier. The agreement came to an end on 31.8.2020. Thereafter, on account of no necessity of engagement for work, the petitioner-appellant was not further engaged.

5. Consequently, the petitioner filed Writ -A No.1936 of 2021 (Prashant Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & six others) which was disposed of by order dated 18.3.2021 observing that “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue the concerned respondent is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and redress the same strictly in accordance with law.”

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by learned Single Judge, the representation of the petitioner was decided by the impugned order dated 6.5.2021 passed by the Chief Development Officer, Kannuaj declining to extend the contractual engagement of the petitioner or to reengage him.

7. In the order dated 6.5.2021 it has also been observed that neither post of Computer Operator has been created by the State Government at the District Level for work under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA) scheme nor the petitioner-appellant was employed through lawful selection process.

8. The aforesaid order dated 6.5.2021 was challenged by the petitioner-appellant in Writ-A No.6652 of 2021 which ha