Delhi High Court
Smt. Vandana Shukla vs Indian Institute Of Public ... on 14 September, 2018
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 14th September, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 9625/2018
SMT. VANDANA SHUKLA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Umesh K. Burnwal,
Mr. Satyavir Singh and
Mr. Rizwan, Advs.
versus
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Adv.
for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Ubi jus, as the hallowed adage goes, ibi remedium. For every
right, there is a remedy.
2. Equally, however, sans a right, there can be no remedy.
3. Rights in turn, must source their existence to law, not to
sympathy. Mercy must always temper, but may never be allowed to
triumph, justice.
4. The petitioner is before the court, and is obviously in an
advanced stage of pregnancy. This court wishes her, and her unborn
child, the best that life has to offer; but the power to confer that
dispensation vests with an authority higher, and greater, than ours. The
province of my power is bounded by the borders of the law, and,
peregrinating within those boundaries, I can wander only so far, and
no farther.
5. I cannot, wish as I might, extend, to the petitioner - who is
obviously disconsolate - a benevolence which the law does not extend
to her. It is with a sense of reluctance, therefore, that I confess my
inability to come to her aid.
6. To proceed, then, to the facts.
7. On 16th August, 2016, the petitioner was appointed as ad hoc
Research Officer, for a period of three months, in the Dr. Ambedkar
Chair in Social Justice, in the Respondent No.1 - Institute i.e. the
Indian Institute of Public Administration.
8. The tenure of the petitioner, as Research Officer, was extended
periodically; initially by three months till 9th February, 2017 and,
thereafter, by six months on each occasion till 9 th August, 2017, 9th
February, 2018 and 9th August, 2018. During the course of these
extensions, her salary was also enhanced. Learned counsel for the
petitioner emphatically submits that the repeated extensions of the
petitioner's service, and the enhancement of her salary, were on
account of the exemplary nature of her performance.
9. The tenure of the petitioner's service, as extended on 1 st March,
2018, came to an end on 9th August, 2018. Prior thereto on 3rd August,
2018, the petitioner wrote to the respondent, seeking further extension
of her tenure as Research Officer. However, it is contended, in the
writ petition, and not disputed by the respondent, that the service of
the petitioner was not extended further, beyond 9th August, 2018.
10. It is asserted, in the writ petition, that this decision, not to
extend the petitioner's service further beyond 9th August, 2018, was
owing to the fact that the petitioner is expecting a child, and the
respondent apprehends that she would not be able to discharge her
duties properly, as she would require maternity leave etc.
11. There is nothing on record, excepting the averment of the
petitioner to this effect, to indicate that non-grant of further extension,
to her, as Research Officer, was owing to her pregnancy. Mr.
Ravinder Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent, has on the
other hand, handed over, in court, a noting dated 20 th July, 2018,
which reads thus :
"Dr. Ambedkar Chair in social Justice.
This is to bring to your kind notice the following :
Ms. Vandana Shukla, Research Officer under the Dr.
Ambedkar Chair was appointed on August 09, 2016 purely on
contract and ad-hoc basis. She was given periodic extension
in the past to give an opportunity to learn and improve.
However, her performance has not been consistent all
through. As her term expires on August 09, 2018, it is
recommended that she may not be given further extension.
As we do not have any activities planned for the next
two months which being a lean period, we need not advertise
for the post of Research Officer immediately. We can think
of having a research officer on need basis later on.
Sd/-
(C. Sheela Reddy)
Chair Professor
Dr. Ambedkar chair in Social Justice"
A copy thereof has also been supplied to learned counsel for the
petitioner.
12. Mr. Agarwal also seeks to point out that the decision, as
contained in the aforementioned noting dated 20 th July, 2018, was
taken before the petitioner informed the respondent about her
pregnancy.
13. On the attention of learned counsel for the petitioner being
drawn to this noting, he submits that the petitioner, being a single lady
fighting an organisation, such notings could be easily created, so as to
defeat the case of the petitioner. He also emphasised the fact that the
chaired professor of Dr. Ambedkar Chair in Social Justice, who had
entered this noting had herself, a year prior thereto, extended the
petitioner's service and appreciated her work.
14. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, it is not possible for me to enter
into this thicket of facts, or to psychoanalyze the opinion, reflected in
the noting dated 20th July, 2018. It is a trite position, in law, that an
employee, who is employed on ad hoc or on tenure basis, extended
from time to time, cannot seek extension of his or her tenure ad
nauseam, or challenge the decision not to extend his or her tenure after
it has come to an end, merely because it had been extended,
periodically, in the past.
15. No doubt, if the decision not to extend the tenure is malafide,
vitiated by perversity, or is ex facie arbitrary on the face of the record,
it would attract Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and be
amenable to judicial review. In the present case, however, there is
nothing, on record, which indicates that the decision not to extend the
petitioner's tenure beyond 9th August, 2018, was on account of the fact
that she was enciente. Rather, the noting dated 20th July, 2018,
reproduced hereinabove, would unequivocally indicate otherwise.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Female Workers (Muster Roll), (2000) 3 SCC 224. He has drawn my
attention to certain observations, contained in para 42 of the said
decision, relating to the rights of a woman employee, in a state of
advanced pregnancy, not to undertake hard work, etc, as well as
certain other observations relating to the requirements of achieving a
just social order in view of the provisions contained in the Maternity
Benefit Act, 1961.
17. These observations, in my view, are totally irrelevant, insofar as
the controversy in issue in the present case is concerned.
18. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition, which is devoid of
merits, is dismissed without any order as to costs.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018/kr
