Delhi High Court
Saiyed Zegham Murtaza vs Rajya Sabha Secretariat Through ... on 12 September, 2018
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELH
% Date of decision: 12th September, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 9570/2018 & CM No. 37223/2018
SAIYED ZEGHAM MURTAZA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Taranjit Singh, Mr. A.
Khan, Dr. Farrukh Diwan and
Mr. Chandan Datta, Advs.
Versus
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Zubeda Begum and
Ms. Sana Ansari, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CM No.37223/2018 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9570/2018
1. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Producer, Reporter in
the Rajya Sabha TV for a period of three years with effect from 19th
December, 2011. The appointment was expressly contractual in
nature.
2. The said contract of appointment appeared to have been
extended year to year. On 30th June, 2018, the petitioner applied for
renewal of his contract. However, the contract was not renewed
beyond 30th June, 2018, and consequent on completion of the said
term, the petitioner was relieved, vide order dated 2nd July, 2018.
3. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court
in the present proceedings. The prayers in the writ petition read thus:
"1. To issue appropriate Writ/order in nature of Writ of
Certiorari, quashing the Order contained in letter bearing
reference no.RS.1/5/2012-RSTV/A.Pr./S/Z/M dated
02.07.2018 issued by the respondents, whereby the
Respondents, in unjust and arbitrary manner, informed the
petitioner that the petitioner has been relieved from his duties
in RSTV with effect from the afternoon of 30.06.2018.
2. To issue appropriate Writ order in nature of the Writ of
mandamus directing the Respondents to rescind the said letter
and to extend the period of employment of the petitioner;
3. Pass such other and future order or orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case; and
4. To award the cost of the petition in favour of the
petitioner."
4. The writ petition pleads legitimate expectation, as a basis, the
claim of the petitioner.
5. It is settled, by, inter alia, paras 46 and 47 of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v.
Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation cannot be invoked by contractual employees. The said
paras are reproduced below :
"46. Learned Senior Counsel for some of the respondents
argued that on the basis of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation, the employees, especially of the Commercial
Taxes Department, should be directed to be regularised since
the decisions in Dharwad [(1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC
(L&S) 274 : (1990) 12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] , Piara
Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 825 : (1992) 21
ATC 403 : (1992) 3 SCR 826] , Jacob [Jacob M.
Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority, (1991) 1 SCC 28 :
1991 SCC (L&S) 25 : (1991) 15 ATC 697] and Gujarat
Agricultural University [Gujarat Agricultural
University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar, (2001) 3 SCC 574 : 2001
SCC (L&S) 613] and the like, have given rise to an
expectation in them that their services would also be
regularised. The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of
the administrative authority affect the person by depriving
him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in
the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and
which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue
to do until there have been communicated to him some
rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been
given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received
assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be
withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of
advancing reasons for contending that they should not be
withdrawn. [See Lord Diplock in Council for Civil Services
Union v. Minister of Civil Service [1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3
All ER 935 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL)] , National Buildings
Construction Corpn. v. S. Raghunathan [(1998) 7 SCC 66 :
1998 SCC (L&S) 1770] and Chanchal Goyal (Dr.)v. State of
Rajasthan [(2003) 3 SCC 485 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 322] .]
There is no case that any assurance was given by the
Government or the department concerned while making the
appointment on daily wages that the status conferred on him
will not be withdrawn until some rational reason comes into
existence for withdrawing it. The very engagement was
against the constitutional scheme. Though, the Commissioner
of the Commercial Taxes Department sought to get the
appointments made permanent, there is no case that at the
time of appointment any promise was held out. No such
promise could also have been held out in view of the circulars
and directives issued by the Government after Dharwad
decision[(1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1990)
12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] . Though, there is a case
that the State had made regularisations in the past of similarly
situated employees, the fact remains that such regularisations
were done only pursuant to judicial directions, either of the
Administrative Tribunal or of the High Court and in some
cases by this Court. Moreover, the invocation of the doctrine
of legitimate expectation cannot enable the employees to
claim that they must be made permanent or they must be
regularised in the service though they had not been selected in
terms of the rules for appointment. The fact that in certain
cases the court had directed regularisation of the employees
involved in those cases cannot be made use of to found a
claim based on legitimate expectation. The argument if
accepted would also run counter to the constitutional mandate.
The argument in that behalf has therefore to be rejected.
47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets
engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the
engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised
by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the
consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or
contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory
of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when
an appointment to the post could be made only by following a
proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in
consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore,
the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully
advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It
cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise
while engaging these persons either to continue them where
they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot
constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that
the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being
made permanent in the post."
6. In view thereof, it is not possible to grant any relief to the
petitioner.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as
to costs.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
