Delhi High Court
Sarat Chandra Padhi vs National Council Of Teachers ... on 24 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 24, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 715/2018 & CM 3066/2018
SARAT CHANDRA PADHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gautam Kumar Laha and Mr.
Rajvardhan Singh, Advocates
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS EDUCATION
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In partial modification of Office Order of 8th August, 2014
(Annexure P-2), petitioner was engaged as a full-time Consultant (Legal)
by respondent on contract basis for a period of six months or till further
orders, whichever is earlier. Petitioner's engagement as full-time
Consultant (Legal) had commenced on 22nd May, 2015. Vide Office
Order of 17th May, 2017 (Annexure P-3), petitioner's engagement as full-
time Consultant (Legal) was renewed by respondent for further period of
six months from 21st May, 2017 or till further orders, whichever is earlier.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's engagement
as full-time Consultant (Legal) with respondent had come to an end on
20th November, 2017. Petitioner's counsel submits that proposal for
extension of petitioner's term by another six months was floated in
November, 2017, but no communication has been received from
respondent and petitioner was surprised to learn that respondent on 6 th
December, 2017 has issued an Advertisement (Annexure P-4) for
engagement of Legal Consultants on contract basis and the age limit for
applying to the post of Legal Consultant is 61 years whereas petitioner is
now aged 66 years and is ineligible to apply.
3. Learned counsel for respondent relies upon Supreme Court's
decision in Surinder Prasad Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors., (2006) 7 SCC 684 to submit that it
would be improper for the Courts to give direction in respect of
temporary or contractual employees when they have not been appointed
by following the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of
the Constitution of India. So, it is submitted that this petition deserves to
be dismissed in limine.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of material on record and decision
cited, I find that equality of opportunity in public employment justifies
issuance of Advertisement (Annexure P-4), which does provide age
criteria of sixty one years. Supreme Court in Surendra Prasad Tewari
(supra), has reiterated that regularization of service of ad hoc/ contractual
employees is not to be undertaken as they have not been appointed by
following the procedure laid down under Article 14, 16 and 309 of the
Constitution of India. Petitioner's reliance upon Narinder Singh Ahuja &
Ors. Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.
SCC OnLine Del 2243 is of no avail, as in the said case the contractual
employment was being outsourced to third party and renewal of
contractual employment was to be considered till the currency of
scheme/project.
5. No doubt petitioner was also appointed in pursuance to earlier
Advertisement and the question of extension of his term has not been
adequately considered by respondent but the selection process initiated in
pursuance to Advertisement (Annexure P-4) cannot be halted. In the facts
and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to direct
respondent that before finalizing the recruitment process pursuant to
Advertisement (Annexure P-4) petitioner be intimated as to why
petitioner's case for extension has not been considered and what is the
rationale to fix the age limit of sixty one years. Such a course is being
adopted to enable petitioner to have recourse to law, if petitioner is not
satisfied with the intimation so provided by respondent.
6. With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed
of.
Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 24, 2018
s/r
