Bijender Singh vs University Of Delhi And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 491 Del

JUDGMENT

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 2(b), 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the respondent R.B. Solanki, acting Principal of B.R. Ambedkar College for committing willful and deliberate contempt of this court by disobeying the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 27.10.1999.

2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed as Ad hoc Junior Assistant-cum-Typist (JACT) in B.R. Ambedkar College w.e.f. 1.1.1997. With some breaks his adhoc appointment was extended from time to time. In June 1999 he filed CWP No. 3750 of 1999 for regularisation of his appointment to the post of JACT. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 27.10.1999. Operative portion of this order, being relevant, is reproduced as under:

"In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted. The only direction which can be given is that the services of the petitioner will not be substituted by another ad hoc JACT. It is made clear that it will not prevent the respondent-College from discontinuing the services of the petitioner if the services are not required. However, respondent-college will not be permitted to dispense with the services of the petitioner and then take another ad hoc employee in his place.....

3. The instant petition was filed by the petitioner on 20.9.2002, inter alia, complaining that soon after the decision in his writ petition, respondent No. 2 terminated the adhoc appointment of the petitioner on the post of JACT w.e.f. 15.11.1999. Thereafter w.e.f. 1.12.1999 one Sudhir Sherawat was appointed as ad hoc JACT and this adhoc appointment was extended by letter dated 2.3.2000. Beside after the appointment of the petitioner one Devinder Singh was also appointed as adhoc JACT and he was still continuing to be in service. The termination of the service of the petitioner was arbitrary and illegal and was as a result of his filing the writ petition. Respondent No. 2 has intentionally and contumaciously disobeyed the order of this Court as such is guilty of the contempt. Therefore, respondent No. 2 should be punished and the petitioner should be directed to be reinstated to the post of JACT with consequential relief.

4. Respondent No. 2 resisted this petition repudiating the allegations made by the petitioner that he willfully, deliberately and intentionally committed breach of the order of this Court dated 27.10.1999 and was guilty of committing contempt of the court. It was submitted that the service of the petitioner was not required. So it was terminated with effect from 15.11.1999 strictly in conformity with the order of this Court. One Ms. Rama Bajaj, who was a permanent JACT and was working in the Accounts Department, proceeded on leave w.e.f. 29.11.1999 on account of her marriage which was solemnised on 23.11.1999 and also on study leave, therefore, in order to ensure that the accounts work did not suffer, Sudhir Sherawat, who was a Commerce Graduate and knew accounts was appointed in the leave vacancy of Ms. Rama Bajaj with effect from 1.12.1999. Mrs. Rama Bajaj thereafter extended her leave from time to time. Therefore, the adhoc appointment of Sudhir Sherawat was extended. In January 2000 the post of JACT was advertised and the petitioner also applied for it. He also appeared at the written test but failed to qualify it. Therefore, he was not called for further typing test etc. The service of Sudhir Sherawat was now been dispensed with on account of adhoc promotion of an old employee to the said post. As regards, Devinder Singh, it was alleged that he was appointed w.e.f. 15.2.1999 much prior to the date on which the services of the petitioner were discontinued. It was submitted that the respondent has not committed contempt and the petition is liable to be dismissed. An affidavit of B.R. Solanki respondent No. 2 has been filed in support of the reply.

5. An additional affidavit was also filed by respondent No. 2 subsequently in which it was stated that Ms. Rama Bajaj who was working as JACT in the Accounts Department after her marriage on 23.11.1999 went on leave on account of marriage as well as study leave w.e.f. 29.11.1999 which was extended after every six months and was last extended up to 30.6.2001. Her leave was sanctioned by the Governing Body. She was working in the Accounts Department. A note was put up before the Managing Committee for appointment of Sudhir Sherawat as adhoc JACT in the leave vacancy of Ms. Rama Bajaj, copy of which was annexed as Annexure R-4. Sudhir Sherawat is no more in service w.e.f. 15.6.2000 due to the departmental promotion of Rajinder Singh, Daftri to the post of JACT on adhoc basis till Ms. Rama Bajaj remained on leave.

6. In the rejoinder to this reply and the additional affidavit the petitioner reiterated his own case and denied that of respondent No. 2. It was stated that the allegation that Sudhir Sherawat was appointed in the leave vacancy of Ms. Rama Bajaj w.e.f. 1.12.1999 on the ground that he was a Commerce Graduate and an accounts knowing person is nothing but a ruse. Moreover, the respondent should have followed the well settle law regarding retrenchment that the person who comes first must go in the last and that Devinder Singh was appointed as adhoc JACT much after the appointment of the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the writ petition was decided on 27.10.1999 allowing the respondent to dispense with the service of the petitioner if it was not required but the respondent No. 2 was clearly debarred from appointing another adhoc employee in his place. It was submitted that the service of the petitioner was terminated on 15.11.1999 and even on that date respondent No. 2 must have knowledge that Ms. Rama Bajaj, JACT was likely to proceed on leave on account of her marriage and a leave vacancy was likely to occur in the near future. Therefore, there was no need of termination of the service of the petitioner since the petitioner could have been adjusted against the leave vacancy of Ms. Rama Bajaj. Even otherwise the petitioner could have been appointed to the post of adhoc JACT after she was allowed to proceed on leave on account of her marriage and study leave w.e.f. 29.11.1999. According to him, the appointment of Sudhir Sherawat in the leave vacancy of Ms. Rama Bajaj on the pretext that he was a Commerce Graduate and knew accounts is nothing but a ruse and to circumvent the rigours of the order of this Court which debarred the respondent from giving employment to somebody else to the post vacated by the petitioner. It is contended that respondent No. 2 has willfully and contumaciously disobeyed the order of this Court dated 27.10.1999 and he is guilty of committing contempt, therefore, should be punished.

8. Controverting the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondent has strenuously argued that the services of the petitioner was not required by the respondent. In accordance with order of this Court dated 27.10.1999 his adhoc appointment was terminated, therefore nobody has been appointed to the post vacated by the petitioner. Justifying the appointment of Sudhir Sherawat as adhoc JACT w.e.f. 1.12.1999 counsel argued that this appointment was made in the leave vacancy caused by Ms. Rama Bajaj, permanent JACT of the Accounts Department on her proceeding on leave on account of her marriage and study leave w.e.f. 29.11.1999. He referred to the note which respondent No. 2 had submitted to the Governing Body on 29.11.1999 which stated that Ms. Rama Bajaj of Accounts Section was on leave since 20.11.1999 and that there was heavy work in the Accounts Branch particularly because of the closing of the financial year in March 2000, therefore, somebody who had the accounts background was required to be appointed on adhoc basis in her place. It is submitted that Ms. Rama Bajaj extended her study leave which was sanctioned by the Governing Body and attention has been drawn to the various resolutions of the Governing Body of the College, copies of which have been submitted. Anyhow, it is submitted that even Sudhir Sherawat is no more working with the respondent and one lower grade employee who was working as Daftri has been promoted and appointed as adhoc JACT in the leave vacancy of Ms. Rama Bajaj. It is also submitted that Devinder Singh was appointed after the appointment of the petitioner but he had been working since long before the services of the petitioner was terminated. Therefore, the petitioner cannot ask for the termination of the services of Devinder Singh and his own appointment on that post. It is reiterated that after the termination of the services of the petitioner, the post vacated by the petitioner was not filled in.Rather, the post of JACT was advertised in January 2000 and the petitioner also applied for it. The petitioner appeared in the written test but could not qualify it. Therefore, he was not called for further typing and other tests necessary for regular appointment. For all these reasons it is submitted that the respondent has not contravened the order of this Court and he is not guilty of contempt of the court.

9. The petitioner was working as adhoc JACT. Devinder Singh was also working as adhoc JACT. Both posts were adhoc. This Court by order dated 27.10.1999 allowed respondent No. 2 to terminate the services of the petitioner if it was not required but debarred the respondent from appointing somebody else to that post after the service of the petitioner was dispensed with. It is not the case of the petitioner that after his service was terminated w.e.f. 15.11.1999 respondent No. 2 appointed somebody else to that post. Rather, it is an admitted case of the parties that Sudhir Sherawat was appointed as adhoc JACT w.e.f. 1.12.1999 in the leave vacancy caused by Ms. Rama Bajaj proceeding on leave on account of her marriage. She was married on 23.11.1999 and was on leave from 20.11.1999. The leave was sanctioned w.e.f. 29.11.1999 which was extended by her from time to time. It is also not denied that Ms. Rama Bajaj was working in the Accounts Department and further that Sudhir Sherawat was a Commerce Graduate and knew accounts. Therefore, the appointment of Sudhir Sherawat in the Accounts Department as adhoc JACT in the leave vacancy of Ms. Rama Bajaj cannot be said to be in violation of the order of this Court dated 27.10.1999. The respondent needed someone to look after the accounts work particularly when the financial year was coming to a end shortly. The subsequent extension to the service of Sudhir Sherawat was on account of further extension of leave by Ms. Rama Bajaj which could not have been foreseen by respondent No. 2. Since Ms. Rama Bajaj got extension of her leave one after the other, an adhoc promotion has now been made from a lower grade employee till Ms. Rama Bajaj returned from leave.

10. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, there does not appear any substance in the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 has willfully and intentionally violated the order of this Court dated 27.10.1999 by appointing Sudhir Sherawat as adhoc JACT in the Accounts Department or not terminating the service of Devinder Singh. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 cannot be said to have committed contempt of this Court to be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

11. The petition has no merit and it is dismissed. The notice issued to the respondent No. 1 is discharged.