Delhi High Court
Dr. (Mrs.) Anita Mehrotra vs Miranda House And Ors. on 21 November, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4519/2008
% 21st November, 2013
DR. (MRS.) ANITA MEHROTRA ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nawab Singh Jaglan, Advocate
for petitioner No.1.
Versus
MIRANDA HOUSE AND ORS. ...Respondents
Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Beenashaw Soni,
Advocate and Mr. Aakash Yadav,
Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 4
and 5.
Mr. Amit Khemka, Advocate with
Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. I may note that there were two petitioners in this writ petition.
Petitioner no.2 had withdrawn her petition and the case is now being
argued only by petitioner no.1 for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.
W.P.(C) No.4519/2008 Page 1 of 6
2. Petitioners were appointed as ad hoc Lecturers with the
respondent no.1/Miranda House. Petitioners participated in the selection
process for appointment to permanent posts as per the advertisement dated
29.5.2007. Petitioners however were not successful as other candidates
were selected by the Selection Committee. This writ petition is therefore
filed seeking relief of regularization and for challenging the Selection
Committee's decision dated 30.5.2008 not selecting the petitioner no.1.
3. So far as the issue of regularization is concerned, since the
petitioners were admittedly ad hoc employees, and they were not appointed
against permanent vacancies for a regular employment, in view of the ratio
of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1,
petitioners cannot be regularized. In the case of Umadevi (supra) the
following ratio has been laid down:-
"(I) The questions to be asked before
regularization are:-
(a)(i) Was there a sanctioned post (court cannot
order creation of posts because finances of the state
may go haywire), (ii) is there a vacancy, (iii) are the
persons qualified persons and (iv) are the appointments
through regular recruitment process of calling all
W.P.(C) No.4519/2008 Page 2 of 6
possible persons and which process involves inter-se
competition among the candidates
(b) A court can condone an irregularity in the
appointment procedure only if the irregularity does not
go to the root of the matter.
(II) For sanctioned posts having vacancies, such
posts have to be filled by regular recruitment process
of prescribed procedure otherwise, the constitutional
mandate flowing from Articles 14,16,309, 315, 320 etc
is violated.
(III) In case of existence of necessary
circumstances the government has a right to appoint
contract employees or casual labour or employees for a
project, but, such persons form a class in themselves
and they cannot claim equality(except possibly for
equal pay for equal work) with regular employees who
form a separate class. Such temporary employees
cannot claim legitimate expectation of
absorption/regularization as they knew when they were
appointed that they were temporary inasmuch as the
government did not give and nor could have given an
assurance of regularization without the regular
recruitment process being followed. Such irregularly
appointed persons cannot claim to be regularized
alleging violation of Article 21. Also the equity in
favour of the millions who await public employment
through the regular recruitment process outweighs the
equity in favour of the limited number of irregularly
appointed persons who claim regularization.
(IV) Once there are vacancies in sanctioned posts
such vacancies cannot be filled in except without
regular recruitment process, and thus neither the court
W.P.(C) No.4519/2008 Page 3 of 6
nor the executive can frame a scheme to absorb or
regularize persons appointed to such posts without
following the regular recruitment process.
(V) At the instance of persons irregularly
appointed the process of regular recruitment shall not
be stopped. Courts should not pass interim orders to
continue employment of such irregularly appointed
persons because the same will result in stoppage of
recruitment through regular appointment procedure.
(VI) If there are sanctioned posts with vacancies,
and qualified persons were appointed without a regular
recruitment process, then, such persons who when the
judgment of Uma Devi is passed have worked for over
10 years without court orders, such persons be
regularized under schemes to be framed by the
concerned organization.
(VII) The aforesaid law which applies to the Union
and the States will also apply to all instrumentalities of
the State governed by Article 12 of the Constitution".
4. Since the appointment of the petitioners was only as ad hoc
Lecturers, and was not regular employment against any sanctioned posts,
relief of regularization therefore cannot be granted.
5. The only issue is that whether petitioners can succeed in
challenging the decision of the Selection Committee dated 30.5.2008. In
this regard, I may state that Courts do not substitute their opinions taken by
the members of the Selection Committee, more so because Courts are ill-
equipped to do so, and certain decisions are best left for experts in the
W.P.(C) No.4519/2008 Page 4 of 6
field. Decision of the Selection Committee can be challenged only in
extremely limited circumstances of ex facie perversity or violation of any
rules or gross malafides which violates the selection proceedings.
6. In view of the aforesaid requirements of law for challenging
the decision of the Selection Committee, I put it to the counsel for the
petitioner no.1 that what are the detailed averments for challenging the
decision of the Selection Committee, and to which counsel for the
petitioner no.1 could refer to only ground (A) of the writ petition and
which reads as under:-
"A. Because the impugned Minutes of the meeting/decision
taken on 30 May 2008 is illegal, arbitrary and malafide."
7. In my opinion, the aforesaid two lines stated in ground (A) are
quite clearly grossly insufficient to make out any case, much less a legal
case, for questioning the decision of the Selection Committee dated
30.5.2008. A self-serving statement or ipse dixit of the petitioners cannot
mean that the decision of the Selection Committee would become illegal or
malafide. Also, simply because one member of the Selection Committee,
out of a total of seven members, has filed an affidavit in this Court stating
that procedure was not fair, cannot make the procedure of the Selection
Committee as unfair because Selection Committee's decision cannot be
disputed by only one member of the seven members committee. Unless
W.P.(C) No.4519/2008 Page 5 of 6
there is law to the contrary, and no such law has been pointed out to me,
the decision of the majority will prevail, and in fact I may note that learned
senior counsel appearing for respondent nos.1, 4 and 5 state that the
respondent no.2-Ms. Nisha Bala Tyagi was member of the Selection
Committee (and who has filed an affidavit in support of the petitioners),
participated in the meeting but when her turn came to sign the minutes, she
just went away. At best therefore it would mean that there is objection of
only one member of the committee, and the same cannot mean that
decision of committee of majority of six other members would stand
superseded.
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 21, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
