Sh. Jeet Ram vs Oc, Cwg Delhi 2010 And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1277 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             WP(C) No.1665/2011

%                                                       March 14, 2013

SH. JEET RAM                                  ..... Petitioner
                     Through:      Mr. S. Mukherjee, Senior Advocate with
                                   Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, Advocate.


                     versus


OC, CWG DELHI 2010 AND ORS.             ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rohit K. Aggarwal, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner for stopping the

implementation of his transfer orders and for restraining the respondent

No.1 from terminating the services of the petitioner. The respondent

No.1 is the Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games Delhi,

2010.

2. The petitioner was admittedly appointed in terms of the

appointment letter dated 17.2.2006. This appointment letter reads as

under:-

  "Dr. Lalit K Bhanot                  No.OC/CWG/Apt./06
 Secretary General                    17 February 2006

 Mr. Jeet Ram,
 H.No.P-29,
 Sri Niwaspuri,
 New Delhi-110065

 SUB: Appointment as Stenographer

With reference to your application, you are hereby appointed as Stenographer on adhoc basis in the Secretariat Organizing Committee, Commonwealth Games Delhi 2010 on the following terms and conditions:

1. Your appointment will take effect from the date you join duty.

2. You will be paid a consolidated lump sum salary of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month.

3. Your services will be governed by the rules & regulations of the Organizing Committee in force and as amended or formulated from time to time.

4. This appointment is subject to your being found medically fit and your character being verified as satisfactory.

5. You will not take up any other work or appointment elsewhere during the tenure of your service with the Organizing Committee, CWG Delhi 2010.

6. Further continuation of this appointment will be considered after review at the expiry of 6 months. The appointment is co-terminus with the holding of the Commonwealth Games during October 2010.

7. This appointment is terminable on one month notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof on either side.

8. In case, at any stage it is found that any particulars or information given by you in your application is false or incorrect, your appointment will be deemed as void and liable for termination without notice.

Please return the duplicate copy of this letter duly signed in acceptance of the terms and conditions.

(Dr. Lalit Bhanot) Secretary General"

3. Paras 6 and 7 of the appointment letter dated 17.2.2006

makes it more than clear that the petitioner's services were co-terminus

with the holding of the commonwealth games during October, 2010 and

the tenure of the services of the petitioner will not exceed the

requirements for the commonwealth games which were to be held during

October, 2010. In fact, services of the petitioner were liable to be

terminated on one month notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof on

either side and were to be periodically reviewed after every six months.

4. The aforesaid shows that the petitioner's appointment was

only a temporary employment for the purpose of Commonwealth Games

which were to be held in October, 2010 and which games are long gone.

Today we are much later in the year 2013.

5. Counsel for the respondents has shown to me a list of 98

employees who were terminated alongwith the petitioner and petitioner is

only one of the employees in the list. Counsel for the respondents argues,

and in my opinion rightly, that the requirement of the employees for the

commonwealth games has come to an end and wherever possible the

employees are being terminated from their services in terms of their

appointment letters and the petitioner is one such person in that category.

6. I may note that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors.,

(2006) 4 SCC 1 has held that except through a regular recruitment

process, persons cannot be appointed either with the Central Government

or with the State Government or with an instrumentality of the State. If I

allow this writ petition it would amount to giving employment to the

petitioner with the Central Government without following the regular

recruitment process.

7. Counsel for the petitioner very vehemently argued that

petitioner should be governed by the principle of "last come and first go",

and which argument appeared attractive at the first blush, however the

fact of the matter is that the petitioner was in fact terminated from the

services on 24.2.2011 i.e before filing of this writ petition on 9.3.2011,

and that too with 97 other employees. There is therefore no unfairness on

the part of the respondent picking and choosing people. The issue

therefore really boils down to one of granting of employment to the

petitioner, and which cannot be done in view of ratio of the Constitution

Bench judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra). Further, this Court

cannot substitute itself for the Organizing Committee with respect to the

aspect of finishing of the requirement of the employees and who would

be no longer required for the work of Organizing Committee inasmuch as

the Commonwealth Games have already been concluded in October,

2010. Counsel for the respondent rightly states that whatever limited

staff is kept back, is for the purpose of limited spill-over works/aspects

pending of the respondent No.1- Organizing Committee.

8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition which

is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 14, 2013 Ne