Delhi High Court
Dr. Ritu Singh vs University Of Delhi And Ors on 4 June, 2021
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.06.2021
+ LPA 181/2021 & CM APPL. 18427, 18428 & 18429/2021
DR. RITU SINGH ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Adv.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ankur Chhibber,
Mr.Anshuman Mehrotra,
Mr.Nikunj Arora, Advs.
Mr.Nirvikar Verma, Adv. for
Respondent No.3/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.
CM APPL. 18428/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 18429/2021 (Permission to File the Additional
Documents)
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the
same is allowed.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA No.181/2021
LPA 181/2021 & CM APPL. 18427/2021
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order
dated of 12.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
in W.P.(C) No.8650/2020 filed by the appellant, dismissing the same.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent
no.2/College for making appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor in Psychology on ad-hoc basis, the appellant was found
successful and was appointed with effect from 05.08.2019. The offer
of appointment was for a period from 05.08.2019 to 04.12.2019 or till
the vacancy against which the appellant was appointed is filled
through proper procedure laid down by the University of Delhi. The
appellant was re-appointed to the said post vide letter dated
01.01.2020 from the period 01.01.2020 to 20.04.2020. The appellant
claimed that even thereafter, as the semester had been extended till
12.06.2020 due to the lockdown declared on the outbreak of Covid-19
pandemic, the appellant continued to discharge her duties. The
appellant further submits that even thereafter, various duties were
assigned to her till as late as August, 2020. The appellant submits that
on 11.08.2020, she was informed that her tenure has not been
extended. Thereafter, she made a representation, however, the
respondents issued a fresh advertisement for appointment to the said
post. Being aggrieved, she filed the above petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA No.181/2021
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant being an ad-
hoc employee cannot be substituted with another employee employed
on ad-hoc basis. He further submits that the respondent has acted with
mala fide. He submits that the respondent has also not placed the
entire record before the learned Single Judge in form of the attendance
of the students in the Psychology (Hons.) classes taken by her and the
result of the students in the said course.
4. He submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in placing
reliance on an unsigned and unverified alleged complaint received by
the respondent no.2 against the appellant from the students as against
the WhatsApp messages that the appellant had placed on record from
the students recording their appreciation for the teaching methods of
the appellant. He submits that, in fact, the appellant was being
victimized as she belongs to a Scheduled Caste category.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, however,
have found no merit in the submissions.
6. The learned Single Judge in his Impugned Order has also
rejected similar submissions observing as under:-
"12. Having heard the learned counsels
for the parties, the issue that arises for
consideration is whether the respondent
No.2 / College is justified in not
allowing the petitioner to continue to
work as Assistant Professor,
Psychology on ad-hoc basis in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA No.181/2021
respondent No.2 / College. The case of
the respondent No.2 / College is
primarily that complaints have been
received from the students with regard
to petitioner's manner of teaching. The
respondent No.2 / College has also
relied upon the results achieved by the
students in Psychology examinations,
which was the subject taught by the
petitioner. It is their case also, that the
attendance in the class of the petitioner
has also been reduced as no student
was interested in attending her class. In
substance, the respondent No.2 /
College highlighted the unsatisfactory
performance of the petitioner as a
teacher. The petitioner has controverted
the stand of the respondent No.2 /
College saying that the same is on the
basis of false and fabricated complaint
alleged to have been made by the
students. Rather, the counsel for the
petitioner has by relying upon the
whatsapp messages, contended that the
students were happy with the manner in
which the petitioner was teaching the
students. On a legal issue, it was
contended by the counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned
advertisement, which was issued by the
respondent No.2 with a purpose to
replace the petitioner was clearly
untenable, as an ad-hoc employee could
not have been replaced by another ad-
hoc employee. There is no dispute on
the proposition of law but surely in view
of the judgment of this Court in the case
of Ms. Shalini Sethi (supra), the said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA No.181/2021
proposition of law would not be
applicable, if the termination sought to
be affected is on the basis of
unsatisfactory service.
13. Having said that, insofar as the
plea of unsatisfactory service is
concerned, the respondent No.2 /
College has relied upon the letter
written by the students highlighting the
unsatisfactory performance of the
petitioner. That apart, they have relied
upon the results in the Psychology
examinations and also the fact that the
attendance of the students in her class
has reduced. Though, the petitioner has
disputed the letter written by the
students by stating that the same is
fabricated but there is no denial to the
fact that the attendance in the
Psychology subject has reduced as well
as the results of the students in the
subject. These two aspects are co-
related to the teacher, who is teaching
the Psychology, i.e., the petitioner
herein. The plea of the counsel for the
petitioner that the decision of
respondent No.2 / College, not to
continue the services of petitioner is in
violation of principles of natural justice
as no notice was given eliciting the
reply of the petitioner by relying on the
Judgments of the Supreme Court in A.K.
Kripak (supra) and Maneka Gandhi
(supra) is also not appealing. This I say
so in view of the stand of the respondent
No.2 / College to continue with the
services of the petitioner beyond the
period of her engagement which was to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA No.181/2021
end on December 4, 2019, on repeated
assurances by the petitioner and
representative of DUTA that petitioner
will improve her teaching skills and will
focus on the academic well-being of the
students, which she could not improve
as within few months of her
engagement, the respondent No.2 /
College started receiving complaints
against the petitioner's lack of interest.
This stand of the respondent No.2 /
College has not been denied by the
petitioner in the Rejoinder affidavit. So,
it must be held, that there is sufficient
compliance of principles of natural
justice as, the appointment of the
petitioner was on ad-hoc basis and as
such has no right on the post. The
judgments relied upon by the counsel
for the petitioner on the aspect of
natural justice are thus distinguishable
in the facts of this case.
14. That apart, the final decision, not
to allow the petitioner to continue as an
ad-hoc lecturer is based on the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
Competent Authority in the respondent
No.2 / College. Except for making bald
allegations of mala fide, the petitioner
has not even cared to implead the
principal of the respondent No.2 /
College in her personal capacity to
substantiate her plea that the action of
the Principal of respondent No.2 /
College was mala fide, so that this
Court may seek an affidavit with regard
to the allegations so made by the
petitioner. Suffice to state, that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA No.181/2021
action, which has been taken by the
respondent No.2 / College by issuing a
fresh advertisement cannot be faulted
and the other prayers as made for, by
the petitioner seeking her re-instatement
as Assistant Professor, Psychology in
the respondent No.2 / College cannot be
acceded to. "
7. It is not denied that the advertisement itself was for appointment
on ad-hoc basis. The tenure of such appointment was also specified.
Though the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
respondent no. 2 has acted out of malice against the appellant,
however, on being queried he could not show any averment in this
regard in the writ petition filed by the appellant. Nor was the Principal
of the respondent no. 2, against whom he now alleges malice, added as
a party respondent.
8. As far as the reliance of the respondent no. 2 on an unsigned
and unverified complaint is concerned, the respondent no. 2 as also the
learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on other factors like the
reduced attendance in the class taught by the appellant as also the
result of the students. The submission of the appellant that for the
same result in other subjects, the teachers teaching such other subjects
were not penalized, is again merely an afterthought and cannot be a
ground for interference in this appeal. The nature of appointment of
such teachers and the overall assessment of such teachers is not in
question before this Court in this appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA No.181/2021
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant was victimized for being a Scheduled Caste category
candidate is merely recorded to be rejected. The appointment of the
appellant was to a post reserved for a Scheduled Caste category and,
there is no such allegation of victimization of the appellant on the
basis of her caste made in the writ petition filed by the appellant.
10. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present appeal, the
same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the
order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
JUNE 4, 2021
RN/U.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA No.181/2021
