Delhi High Court
Vikas Sharma vs Motilal Nehru College (Evening) & ... on 3 April, 2018
$~16, 17 & 24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of order : April 03, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 3607/2017 & CM No.15853/2017
VIKAS SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj and Mr.Nishant Prateek,
Advocates
versus
MOTILAL NEHRU COLLEGE (EVENING)
& ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sumit Rajput and Mr.Amresh Mathur,
Advocates for R-3
Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Mr.Prang Newmai
and Ms.Slomita Rai, Advocates for DU
+ W.P.(C) 8239/2017
JAMIL MALIK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.K.Tyagi, Advocate
versus
MOTILAL NEHRU COLLEGE (EVENING)
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Santosh Kumar and Mr.Abhinav
Sharma, Advocates for R-2
+ W.P.(C) 3158/2018 & CM Nos.12530-32/2018
SH. SHYAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Siddhant Srivastava, Advocate
versus
MOTILAL NEHRU COLLEGE (EVENING)
W.P.(C) No.3607/2017 & conn. matters Page 1
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Mr.Prang Newmai
and Ms.Slomita Rai, Advocates for DU
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Petitioners in the above captioned three petitions, had applied for the
post of Senior Technical Assistant (Computer), Senior Assistant and
Computer Lab Attendant in pursuance to advertisement of 9th December,
2014 and it is the case of petitioners that they had qualified the written
examination and their names find mention in the select lists issued in March
and May, 2016 and they were to be called for interview. It is not in dispute
that Department of Personnel and Training of Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pension vide office memorandum of 29 th December, 2015
discontinued holding of interview for the junior level post in Government of
India and the said office memorandum stood adopted by respondent-
University vide office memorandum of on 2nd December, 2016. Prior
thereto, respondent-college vide its Communication of 16th May, 2016 had
called upon the respondent-University to provide the names of external
experts of the Selection Committees as the validity of the empanelment for
appointment was to lapse in July, 2016. Respondent-college had also
requested the respondent-University to convey a special approval of the
university, so that the validity of the advertisement in question continues
even after expiry of 18 months. Aforesaid Communication of 16th May,
2016 of respondent-college stands rejected by the respondent-University on
W.P.(C) No.3607/2017 & conn. matters Page 2
23rd June, 2016 by a cryptic order. What has been said by the respondent-
University in its rejection order of 23rd June, 2016 is that recruitment process
cannot go beyond 18 months. It has been so said in respect of the non-
teaching staff posts.
2. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the above
captioned three petitions have been heard together and are being decided by
this common order.
3. It is matter of record that after the counter was filed by the
respondents, petitioner-Vikas Sharma has placed on record additional
documents in November, 2017. Reliance has been placed upon University
Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013
and minutes of the Executive Council meetings to make out a case that the
bar of 18 months would not apply where appointments are made in respect
of non-teaching staff. Since authenticity of the additional documents so
filed cannot be determined in writ proceedings, therefore, it is deemed
appropriate to permit petitioners to make a concise and effective
representation seeking reconsideration of the cryptic order of 23rd June, 2016
of respondent-University as the University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms
and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 permit the Executive Council of the
University of Delhi to grant relaxation of any provision of the recruitment
rules. The respondent-University is also required to clarify as to whether the
EC Resolution No.628 dated 17.03.1983; No. 656 dated 15.02.1985; No.
5(1) dated 20.05.1989 and No. 140 dated 10.02.2004 as amended on 14th
November, 2013 would apply to non-teaching posts as the said resolution
appears to be in the context of teaching posts.
4. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases, the writ petitions and the
W.P.(C) No.3607/2017 & conn. matters Page 3
applications are disposed of with permission to petitioners to file concise
representations within a week to respondent-University. Upon receipt of
such representations, the Competent Authority shall pass a speaking order
thereon, within a period of six weeks and the fate of the representations be
made known to petitioners within a week thereafter, so that petitioners may
avail of the remedy as available in law, if need be. Needless to say, if
process for filling up the posts in question is not continuing, then it be not
proceeded with, till fate of the Representations is conveyed to petitioners.
With aforesaid directions, these petitions and the applications are
disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 03, 2018
mamta
W.P.(C) No.3607/2017 & conn. matters Page 4
