Delhi High Court
Dr. Sanjeev Bansal & Ors. vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 25 May, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.6506/2002
% 25th May, 2015
DR. SANJEEV BANSAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: None.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Mathur, Adv. for R-1 and
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. No one appears for the petitioners although it is 1.05 P.M. This case
is on the regular board of this Court since 9.3.2015. Petitioners were
appointed as ad hoc teachers by the respondent no. 3/College/Maharaja
Agrasen College, and they seek the relief that they should be regularized to
the posts and the appointments made of other persons be cancelled (initially
respondent nos. 6 to 9).
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.
3/College/Maharaja Agrasen College, it is specifically stated that the persons
who were appointed as Lecturers were appointed in terms of the regular
recruitment process to the regular posts after issuing advertisement. It is
stated that even petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee but
petitioners were not selected, and therefore, could not be appointed. Regular
appointment in the Department of Mathematics is stated to have been
completed on 20.11.2002 and in the Department of Hindi on 22.11.2002. It
is therefore stated that the petitioners cannot challenge the regular
appointments made by the respondent no. 3/College/Maharaja Agrasen
College pursuant to an open advertisement and following the due process of
the law.
3. A Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others
2006 (4) SCC 1 has laid down the following ratio:
"(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
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 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. The Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi's
(supra) case therefore makes it clear that at the instance of ad hoc or
contractual or irregular appointment the process of regular recruitment
cannot be stopped. Once the respondent no. 3/College/Maharaja Agrasen
College has made regular appointments in regular posts by following a due
process including issuing of an advertisement for the posts, and in which
process petitioners also appeared but were not selected, petitioners cannot
claim entitlement to regularization or to continue in the ad hoc posts'
appointments.
5. Dismissed.
MAY 25, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara
