Delhi High Court
Monalisa Joshi vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 January, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 1296/2014
% 20th January , 2015
MONALISA JOSHI ......Petitioner
Through: None.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao and Mr. K.
Harshvardhan, Advs. for R-2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India petitioner seeks quashing of the communications issued by the
employer/respondent nos. 2 to 4/Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
dated 2.8.2011, 8.9.2011, 17.5.2012 and 11.12.2012 whereby the contractual
services of the petitioner as an Associate Fellow were terminated by not
continuing the contractual appointment.
2. Petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) no.
7176/2012 in this Court and which was disposed of by a learned Single
WP(C) 1296/2014 Page 1 of 5
Judge of this Court on 16.11.2012 directing the respondents to pass a
reasoned order with respect to non-continuation of services of the petitioner.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 16.11.2012 in W.P.(C) No.
7176/2012 the employer passed the following reasoned order dated
11.12.2012 giving reasons for refusing to renew the contract of the petitioner
as an Associate Fellow:-
"However, in compliance with the Order dated 16th November
2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, please find herein below
the reasons for refusal to renew your One Year Contract as an
Associate fellow;
1. You joined the Institute on 21st November 2005 as a
Research Assistant initially for a term of 6 months, which was
thereafter extended periodically. During your tenure as the
Research Assistant, it was seen that you had potential but were
not performing adequately. You were therefore counseled on
more than one occasion to improve your performance.
2. It is seen from your leave record that during your tenure
as a Research Assistant between November 2005 to August
2010, you had availed leave of 600 days i.e., 28.8% of the total
period. You were also communicated written displeasure for
absence without leave in October 2008. It is also seen that on
eight occasions you were granted without pay on
compassionate ground. This goes to show that the Institute was
more than considerate with you.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that in the normal course
extension of tenure is granted to scholars for two years at a
time, but due to your indifference performance, only short
extensions were granted to you as a Research Assistant and that
too on compassionate grounds.
WP(C) 1296/2014 Page 2 of 5
4. While considering your application for selection as an
Associate Fellow, the Institute took into consideration the face
that you had already worked at the institute previously and you
had a Ph.D., and offered a fellowship only for a period of 1 year
so as to give you an opportunity to improve your performance.
It was also agreed that you would be granted an extension only
after detailed evaluation of your work. It is pertinent to
mention here that in the usual course a fellowship is granted for
a period of two years unlike in your case where an exception
was made in the above terms.
5. Contrary to the Institute's expectations, your work as an
Associate Fellow was unsatisfactory. You were also personally
briefed on the above mentioned work expectation and
counseled to improve your performance by the then Director
General, Shri. NS Sisodia.
6. Since your performance during your tenure as an
Associate Fellow was not as per the Institute's expectation it
was decided by the Institute to not renew your Contract beyond
August 2011 specially since you could not claim renewal of the
Contract as a matter of legal right.
7. This is for your information please.
8. This issues with the concurrence of Director General,
IDSA." (underlining added)
4. A reference to the reasons as given above shows that the
reasons are such which in the opinion of this Court are valid reasons for not
renewing of a contractual employment. It is the factual position as per the
aforesaid order that the petitioner was not only counseled repeatedly to
improve her performance, petitioner in fact availed as many as 600 days of
leave within the period of November 2005 to August 2010. With respect to
WP(C) 1296/2014 Page 3 of 5
these long leaves displeasure was communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner
was also granted leave without pay on 8 occasions on compassionate
grounds. The other grounds also show the indifferent performance of the
petitioner and petitioner not improving inspite of counseling. The work of
the petitioner was evaluated in detail.
5. It is settled law that it is only the employer which is entitled to
examine the quality of services for a contractual employee for the contract to
be renewed and this court is not equipped to do this exercise. This Court
cannot substitute itself for the decision making authority with respect to
satisfaction of performance of the petitioner. This Court can only interfere if
the actions of the employer are totally arbitrary and which ground I do not
find exists in the present case in view of the detailed reasons given for not
renewing the contractual employment of the petitioner. I may also state that
the employer/respondents no. 2 to 4 have also stated in para P of their
counter affidavit that the employer is bound by time specified commitments
for giving its reports to its customers and unnecessary leaves of the
petitioner and lack of performance caused considerable prejudice to the
employer.
WP(C) 1296/2014 Page 4 of 5
6. In view of the above, I do not find that the employer has
wrongly and arbitrarily refused to extend the contractual employment to the
petitioner as an Associate Fellow.
7. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
JANUARY 20, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
