Raj Kumar vs University Of Delhi & Anr.
2019 Latest Caselaw 127 Del

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 127 Del
Judgement Date : 9 January, 2019

Delhi High Court

Raj Kumar vs University Of Delhi & Anr. on 9 January, 2019

$~18
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 09th January, 2019

+      W.P.(C) 6421/2017 & CM APPL. 26584/2017

       RAJ KUMAR                                             ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr. A.P. Mohanty, Advocate.

                          versus

       UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.                 ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Seema
                              Dolo, Advocates for R-1.
                              Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon and
                              Ms.Mamta Tandon, Advocates for
                              R-2.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has challenged notice/letter

dated 19.07.2017 of respondent inviting for interview to fill the post on ad

hoc basis for the post of Assistant Professor, in question.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2009, he joined Khalsa

College, Delhi University as an ad hoc Assistant Professor (Zoology). He

worked in said college till 21.05.2012. On 23.07.2012, he joined

Deshbandhu College as Assistant Professor (Zoology) on ad hoc basis. The

said appointment continued thereafter. Further, the case of the petitioner is

that he has been engaged afresh at the start of every academic year. The

certificate issued by the said college has established that the engagement of

the petitioner in the month of July of each academic year. On 20.06.2017

Deshbandu College had issued an advertisement for making appointment on

regular basis to various posts of Assistant Professor (Zoology). The

petitioner applied against it.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that a fresh advertisement has been

issued on 19.07.2017 for making the appointment to the post of Assistant

Professor (Zoology) on ad hoc basis. The petitioner having worked as an ad

hoc Lecturer in Deshbandu College effective from 2012, a fresh

advertisement for making ad hoc appointment is not tenable.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the

similar issue came before the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs.

Piara Singh (1992) 4 SSC 118, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held as under:-

"45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an adhoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an adhoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as

possible. Such a temporary employee may also complete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an adhoc/temporary employee.

46. Secondly, an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.

47. Thirdly, even where an adhoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly."

5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the decision

taken by the Supreme Court, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

6. Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 (college) has not

disputed that the petitioner is working with the respondent No. 2/College on

ad hoc basis. However, thereafter, the college issued fresh notification to

appoint Assistant Professor (Zoology) on ad hoc basis. He further submits

that before that, a notification was issued for regular appointment however,

that could not be matured due to certain reasons thereafter the notice in

question was issued because of the academic year was just started.

7. The fact remained that as has been settled in case of Piara Singh

(supra) that ad hoc employee can be replaced by regular employee not by an

ad hoc employee. This fact has not been disputed even by the respondents.