Maya John And Anr vs University Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 2897 Del

     $~4
     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

     +             LPA 572/2013 & CM No.12094/2013

     %                            Date of decision: 2nd July, 2014

      MAYA JOHN AND ANR                            ..... Appellants
                  Through :            Mr. Sunil Mathews and
                                       Mr. Aditya Shukla, Advs.

                         versus

      UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS        ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
                              for R-4.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The appellants assail the order dated 3rd July, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)No.8419/2011 rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners.

2. In the year 2006, the Delhi University (respondent no.1 herein) came out with a scheme called the University Teaching Assistant Scheme - 2006 („UTA Scheme‟ hereafter). Under this scheme, candidates who had meritoriously completed their master degree course in the year under consideration or in the year prior thereto; had secured more than 55% at the under graduate and post graduate levels; were amongst the top 30 persons of the successful

LPA No.572/2013 page 1 of 7 candidate in the university were eligible for appointment as „University Teaching Assistant‟. The respondents had however prescribed for such departments where the total number of students was 10 - 12, only the candidates who had secured 60% marks in graduation and post graduation alone would be eligible to be considered.

This scheme postulated that the university teaching assistantship would be initially for a period of one year only subject to annual renewal on the recommendation of a Departmental Research Committee after a performance review, subject to maximum period of three years. The total tenure as Teaching Assistant would not exceed four years. The assistantship to the student would terminate on the date of completing the Ph.D or from the date, the assistant opted to resign.

3. As per the original scheme, the University Teaching Assistant would be paid a stipend of Rs.25,000/- per month (exclusive of HRA of Rs.6,900/-) as well as an annual contingency amount which varied depending on the subject discipline involved.

4. The appellant was a student of Ph.D programme conducted by the Delhi University. The petitioner applied for appointment as Teaching Assistant with the Delhi University which application was favourably considered. We may usefully note the material terms and conditions in the appointment letter dated 20 th May, 2009 in response to which the present petitioner raised the claim before the writ court:

LPA No.572/2013 page 2 of 7 "1. The Teaching Assistantship will be initially for a period of one-year w.e.f. the date of registration in Ph.D and will be extendable by up to three years on year-to-year basis subject to an annual performance review by a committee constituted for this purpose. This will be for a maximum period of four years in all.

2. The above award will be governed under the University Teaching Assistantship Scheme 2006 of the University of Delhi as amended from time to time.

3. xxx xxx xxx

4. You will not accept or hold any appointment paid or otherwise, or receive any emoluments, salary stipend etc. from any other source during the tenure of the teaching assistantship. In the event that you are already availing UGC/CSIR or other fellowship, you will be allowed to draw the difference in such a way that the total value of Assistantship does not exceed Rs.25,000/- per months."

It is undisputed that the above terms and conditions were accepted without any objection.

5. The above UTA scheme - 2006 came to be amended by the University of Delhi by its communication dated 10th June, 2010 whereby the following amendment were effected:-

"(a) The awardees of the University Teaching Assistantship will have to clear the UGC NET examination within two years from 01.06.2010 (for the existing incumbents) or within two years from the date of joining as University Teaching Assistant in the Department concerned (for all other incumbents),

LPA No.572/2013 page 3 of 7 failing which the University Teaching Assistantship will be stopped.

(b) The amount of stipend payable to the University Teaching Assistants has been enhanced from Rs.25,000/- pm to Rs.30,000/- pm with effect from July 2010. It will be applicable to all existing and future incumbents awarded the University Teaching Assistantship.

(c) The students who are awarded the University Teaching Assistantship can be involved in tutorial teaching only."

6. We are informed that as a result of the above amendment, the petitioner undertook the University Grants Commission NET Examination four times between the year 2010 to 2012 but unfortunately was unable to clear the same. The petitioner also accepted the enhanced stipend to which she became entitled to by virtue of the amendment of June, 2010. However, in view of her inability to clear the UGC NET Examination up to June, 2012, i.e., within the period of two years from the notified date in the amended scheme, the petitioner‟s teaching assistantship came to an end.

7. It appears that the petitioner had made a challenge to the aforesaid amendment by way of WP(C)No.8419/2011. It was primarily contended that the amendment tantamounted to changing the rules of the scheme midway and the amended terms were beyond the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter dated 20th May, 2009. The appellant had also contended that

LPA No.572/2013 page 4 of 7 her appointment was for a period of four years and was not on year to year basis.

8. The appellant also contended that for registering for the Ph.D the preliminary requirement of UGC (minimum standards and procedure for awards of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulation 2009 of having the NET clearance could not have been required. The submission was that appointment as teaching assistant did not entail the job responsibility of teachers, lecturers or professors with the University. The appellant was also aggrieved by the action of the respondents in deducting the amount of Rs.6,900/- per month from the monthly stipend towards house rent allowance on the ground that she was staying in a room in the university hostel by virtue of her status as a Ph.D student.

9. The matter was heard at length and the contentions made by the appellant were rejected by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 3rd July, 2013. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter dated 20th May, 2009 primarily while denying the relief to the petitioner.

10. We have extracted above clause 2 of the appointment letter whereby the respondents have reserved to themselves the power to amend the terms and conditions of this scheme. The petitioner had raised no objection to the same. The University has amended this scheme and imposed the requirement of clearing the UGC NET Examination within two years from 1st June, 2010. Other than

LPA No.572/2013 page 5 of 7 contending that the same tantamounts to changing the rules of the scheme after the appointment, no other ground of challenge has been pressed before us. Given the fact that the University had clearly reserved to itself the power of amendment at the time of appointment, the principle pressed by the appellant has no application to the instant case. It was open to the respondents to impose the requirement of the NET Examination by virtue of an amendment to the scheme, as has been done.

11. It is noteworthy that by the same amendments (dated 10th June, 2010), enhancement in the stipend was also stipulated which has been accepted by the appellant.

12. So far as the deduction of amount towards house rent allowance is concerned, it is also admitted position that the appellant is staying in accommodation provided by the Delhi University in its women‟s hostel. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the notification dated 8th June, 2011 issued by the respondents which contains the UTA Scheme 2006 wherein it is clearly stipulated in clause 3 that the University Teaching Assistant would be paid a stipend of Rs.30,000/- per month (which includes HRA of Rs.6,900/-) and the annual contingency.

In view of the above, it simply cannot be disputed that the respondents were within their right to deduct the amount of house rent allowance as notified by the respondents.

LPA No.572/2013 page 6 of 7

13. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

This appeal and application are accordingly dismissed.

(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE

(DEEPA SHARMA) JUDGE JULY 02, 2014 mk

LPA No.572/2013 page 7 of 7