D.K. Rangra vs Union Of India And Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5853 Del

$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                  Decided on: 17.11.2014
+      W.P.(C) 4003/2014
       D.K. RANGRA                              ..... Petitioner
                       Through : Sh. U. Srivastava, Advocate.

                          Versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                 ..... Respondents

Through : Ms. Shalini Aggarwal, Advocate, for Resp. No.1.

and 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) %

1. The petitioner's grievance is in respect of the order dated 19.02.2014 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejecting his application, O.A. No.1955/2013. The issue involved is the claim for consideration for appointment to the post of Director in the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), Kangra.

2. The NIFT - an institute of national importance, was set-up and later became subject to an Act of Parliament - National Institute of Fashion Technology Act, 2005 (hereafter called "the Act"). It has its headquarters in New Delhi and various Regional Centres. In one of its centres - at Kangra, it offers various courses.

W.P.(C) 4003/2014 Page 1

3. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Deputy Registrar on 24.11.1992 and later promoted as Registrar on ad-hoc basis and subsequently confirmed against that post.

4. He responded to an advertisement issued in 2008 by the Central Government, seeking applications from eligible candidates for the post of Director. The advertisement clearly stated that the tenure of the incumbent to the post of Director would be by way of deputation for a period of about five years, subject to review. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Director of NIFT on 17.06.2008 for a period of five years. His tenure ended on 16.06.2013. Initially his tenure was curtailed by an order made some time in 2012. He approached the CAT by filing O.A. No.4327/2012 which was allowed on 04.03.2013.

5. The operative portion of the order of CAT reads as follows:

"8. In our opinion, if the respondents intended to terminate the contract for violation of Clauses-12 & 15 of the contract the proper course of action would have been to issue a detailed and speaking order giving the lapses committed by the applicant, the show cause notice issued to him, his reply thereto and the reasons why his reply was found to be unsatisfactory. By not doing so, the respondents have held the charges against the applicant as proved without considering his defence which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, Clause-16 of the contract which provides for termination of the contract in case of violation of any of the conditions of the contract should have been invoked for terminating the Director's contract.

9. However, this was not done and in fact the contract of the applicant has been terminated by invoking Clause-14. This clause provides for

W.P.(C) 4003/2014 Page 2 termination of contract without assigning any reasons after giving three months notice. However, in the instant case this clause has been invoked after giving in details the reasons for terminating the appointment i.e. violation of Clauses 12 and 15 of the contract. Thus the very terms of the clause have been violated. In fact, in our opinion, Clause-14 should not have been used at all when termination was being done on grounds of misconduct. This clause could have been used if the services of the applicant to be terminated on the grounds that the post was no longer required or the workload did not exist etc.

10. The impugned termination order issued by the respondents is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law and we quash the same. As a consequence of quashing of the order, the applicant will have to be reinstated on the post of Director for the remaining period of his contract. This shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. However, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed afresh against the applicant in accordance with law. The O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No costs."

6. The petitioner complained of non-implementation and approached the CAT in contempt proceedings. Subsequently, on 16.06.2013, his tenure period ended. He then approached the CAT with O.A. No.1955/2013, contending that his non-selection to the post of Director, pursuant to the vacancy which occurred after the initial term, was arbitrary. He also stated that the respondents acted illegally in not considering him for appointment as Director to other centres along with other eligible applicants. The CAT rejected all his contentions.

W.P.(C) 4003/2014 Page 3

7. It was urged by the petitioner that even though the original tenure of appointment was five years, and had ended, there was no impediment in his applying afresh to the post of Director and that the respondents were duty-bound to consider his application or at least his candidature once the vacancy arose on 16.03.2013. It was also urged in addition that the CAT failed to address a vital aspect, i.e. that one contractual employee ought not to be ordinarily be replaced by another. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors. 1992 (4) SCC 118.

8. This Court has considered the submissions. The advertisement issued in 2008 clearly stated that the post of Director, NIFT is a tenured one and that the successful incumbent would be entitled to continue in it for five years subject to earlier termination after due notice. The previous proceedings initiated by the applicant were in the context of limited factual matrix, i.e. his discontinuance before the period of five years ended. The discontinuance or termination was on account of alleged misconduct which had not been probed. That is what impelled the CAT to set aside the impugned order and take him back. By the time that process would be completed, his tenure of five years ended on 16.06.2013. Ordinarily, a candidate would undoubtedly have the right to contend that his application should be considered fairly in accordance with law other things being equal. In the present case, however, the vacancy which occurred on account of the petitioner's initial termination was filled by deputation of some one else. Thereafter, his tenure ended. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents were duty-bound to consider the

W.P.(C) 4003/2014 Page 4 extension of the tenure, especially when there is nothing on the record to suggest that an advertisement was issued to fill the vacancy. So far as the second contention is concerned, i.e. that one contractual appointee cannot replace another, apart from the fact that the advertisement itself clarified that the tenure of Director was for a period of five years, we also notice that the judgment in Piara Singh (supra) and other cases pertained to regular sanctioned posts and the Supreme Court was considering the case of regularization of temporary or ad-hoc workmen. That is not the case in the present circumstance. The post of Director is always, ordinarily, accepted to be filled by deputationists on a tenure of five years.

9. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition; it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 17, 2014 'ajk'

W.P.(C) 4003/2014 Page 5