Delhi High Court
Desh Deepak Srivastava & Ors vs Delhi High Court & Anr on 18 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18.07.2022
+ W.P.(C) No. 9570/2015
DESH DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Utkarsh Sirohi with Mr. Pranav Gupta,
Advocates
For the Respondent :Ms. Anu Bagai, Advocate for R-1.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat with Mr. Siddhant
Tyagi, Advocates for District Judge
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
1. A National Policy and Action Plan for implementation of
information and communication technology (referred to as "ICT") in
the Indian Judiciary, was promulgated by the e-Committee, Supreme
Court of India in the year 2005. The policy sought to achieve its
objectives through its implementation in a phased manner over a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.07.2022
15:22:33
period of five years. Needless to say, the creation of the infrastructure
involved appointment of technical and support staff in addition to
allied infrastructure such as computers, laptops, printers, scanners and
other office infrastructure. Pursuant thereto, an office order was
issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, dated
30.09.2010 for implementation of project of computerization of 13348
district and subordinate courts in 2100 Court complexes all over the
country and also the upgradation of ICT infrastructure of the Supreme
Court and the High Courts in a period of two years. By the said office
order, the Government of India revised the cost estimates for the
creation of e-courts from ₹ 441.80 crores to ₹ 935 crores. The
timelines were also provided for upgradation of the ICT.
2. High Court of Delhi issued an advertisement dated 27.05.2011
inviting applications for filling up the positions of "System Officer"
and "System Assistants" to be deployed in subordinate courts. It
specifically mentioned that the said positions are purely on temporary
and contractual basis for a fixed period and are funded by the
Government of India, e-Courts mission mode project and are co-
terminus with the said project. Petitioners on being successful in their
applications were given temporary employment and were assigned
responsibilities of System Officers and System Assistants. Some of
the responsibilities were: (a) uploading of daily cause list, (b)
uploading of judgments, (c) uploading of daily orders, (d) uploading
of case status, etc.
3. The appointment letters issued to the petitioners specifically
mentioned that the positions are purely on temporary and contractual
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.07.2022
15:22:33
basis for a fixed period, funded by the Government of India. It also
mentioned that the services are liable to be terminated without any
notice and/or assigning any reason thereof, and that the person will not
have any right to regular/continuous service as a System Officer.
4. The services of the petitioner were finally terminated w.e.f.
28.02.2015. The petitioners then gave a representation to the High
Court seeking absorption in the regular Cadre of the Court.
5. The non-consideration of their representation and issuance of a
fresh vacancy notice dated 22.7.2015 by the High Court of Delhi for
appointments to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant (Technical)
(hereinafter referred to as "JJA(T)") led to filing of the present writ
petition.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the High Court had relaxed the
educational qualifications and age for the post of JJA(T) for the
existing Data Entry Operators presently working in the Court on
contractual basis as a one-time measure. Four out of twelve petitioners
also applied against advertisements and their candidature were found
to be eligible in terms of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the said
advertisement.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
similarly placed employees who were given contractual employment
under the same policy in various states such as Tripura, Orissa, West
Bengal, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh have been absorbed by the High
Courts after framing necessary rules. He relies upon the notification
issued by the High Court of Tripura Notification bearing No. F.6 (10)-
HC/10-13/11057 dated 29.07.2013 notifying the High Court of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.07.2022
15:22:33
Tripura E-Courts Services (Appointment, Conditions of service &
Conduct) Rules, 2013 vide. It is further contended that the National
Policy and Action Plan for implementation of ICT in Indian Judiciary,
as prepared by the e-Committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, also
contemplates absorbing the technical manpower engaged during the
establishment of e-Courts in the regular Cadre. The petitioners further
contended that they have completed their tenure and fulfilled the
duties assigned to them with devotion, honesty and sincerity.
8. The counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No. 1
opposing the prayer sought in the present writ petition. It is contended
that the petitioners were appointed as System Officers and System
Assistants on purely temporary and contractual basis for a fixed period
for utilization of their services in District Courts. On completion of
the contractual period their services were terminated by the
termination letter No.4790/Comp./DHC dated 27.02.2015 and
corrigendum No.142/Comp./DHC dated 28.02.2015 issued by the
Joint Registrar (judl) (Rules) and CPC, Delhi High Court as they do
not have any right to seek absorption. It is contended that they do not
have any Constitutional/ Statutory/ vested or legal right, which can be
enforced against Respondent No. 1 by filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appointment was purely
on temporary and contractual basis for a fixed period as is evident
from the appointment letter issued to the petitioners. The petitioners
cannot seek quashing of the vacancy notice dated 22.07.2015 issued
by Respondent No. 1 for filling up the vacancies of those of JJA(T) as
the petitioners were never appointed against any regular post. It is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.07.2022
15:22:33
thus contended that there is no illegality or perversity in terminating
the contractual services. It is further contended that the reliance of the
petitioner on National Policy and Action Plan for implementation of
ICT in the Indian Judiciary is misplaced inasmuch as the Chapter 1.6
Part 1dealing with creation of Cadre of troubleshooters for each Court
complex provides that the recruitment of skilled manpower will be for
a fixed period during the implementation of the project. Though it
provides that the skilled manpower can be absorbed in the system as
part of its Establishment as of necessity; the expression used is "can"
and not "shall". Therefore, it is not mandatory that the manpower be
absorbed as part of its Establishment. Further, there is no fundamental
right in those who have been employed or temporarily or on
contractual or ad hoc basis to claim that they have a right to be
absorbed in service.
9. We have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the
parties. The writ petition seeking relief of absorption of petitioners
and setting aside of vacancy notice issued by the High Court for
appointment of JJA(T) is misconceived.
10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were appointed in terms
of the appointment letter No.6969/Comp./DHC dated 13.03.2012
issued by Respondent No.1, purely on temporary and contractual basis
for a fixed period under e-courts mission project funded by
Government of India and their appointments were co-terminus with
the said project. Petitioners joined the services fully aware of the terms
and conditions of their employment in terms of the advertisement
No.424/Comp./DHC dated 27.05.2011 which was purely on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.07.2022
15:22:33
temporary and contractual basis for a fixed period. They were fully
aware that the services were liable to be terminated without any notice
and/or assigning any reason thereof. Further, the appointment letters
mentioned that the officers so appointed will not have any right to
claim regular/continuing service as System Officers in the Courts.
The petitioners after having taken advantage of such appointment for a
period of three years cannot now claim that their services be
regularized disregarding the terms of their appointment. It is also a
matter of fact that Delhi High Court, pursuant to the meeting of the
Chairperson of the High Court Computer Committee held on 14th-15th,
February, 2015, under the aegis of the e-Committee at Supreme Court,
had taken a decision to return the unspent funds released by NIC to the
₹ of
High Court for the above purposes. Pursuant thereto, a sum
1,66,167.10 was returned to NIC by the Delhi High Court, thereby,
leaving nothing to support the salaries of persons temporarily
employed such as petitioners.
11. Such appointment if granted would fallfoul of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma
Devi.
12. It is also settled law that even if a Scheme has been in operation
for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad
hoc basis for decades, it would not entitle the employee to seek
permanency or regularisation.
13. In Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. DGP,(2009) 6 SCC 611, the
Supreme Court observed as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.07.2022
15:22:33
"15.On completion of the project or discontinuance of the
scheme, those who were engaged with reference to or in
connection with such project or scheme cannot claim any right to
continue in service, nor seek regularisation in some other project
or service."
Similarly the Hon'ble Apex court in Resmi R S v. Government of
India, 2019 SCC 2649 held that:
"9. That contractual employees under a Scheme can
have no right to claim that they are entitled to continue
in service after the agreed term of contract isover.
10. who had been engaged on contract basis have no
right to insist that they are to be permitted to continue
after the term of contract has expired."
14. A perusal of the policy and action Plan Document Phase II of
the e-courts project under the Chapter Human Resources, makes it
abundantly clear that the policy only recognized the need for the
technical assistance till such time the technical manpower is
permanently recruited. It recognized that the exercise of recruitment
of permanent technical manpower is likely to take a number of years
in the light of the need to find the funds, finalize the recruitment rules,
undertake recruitment and eventually placing the selected candidates
at the disposal of Courts. Therefore, in the meanwhile, a stop-gap
arrangement was recognized to be put in place for the project duration
so as to ensure that the necessary technical assistance continues to be
available to Courts. Respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit
categorically stating that the appointment of the petitioners was made
keeping in mind the above-mentioned stop-gap arrangement so as to
ensure that the necessary technical assistance continues to be available
to Courts.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.07.2022
15:22:33
15. Even otherwise, the petitioners who were contractual employees
in the Establishment of District Court cannot claim any right to
regularization or absorption by the Establishment of Delhi High Court
as the two are totally independent and separate Establishments. It is
also apparent that vacancy notice dated 22.07.2015 issued for filling
the posts of JJA(T) in Delhi High Court are not connected with the
vacancies notified by the said vacancy notice. The petitioners seem to
have been performing a similar nature of work but they were not
appointed against such vacancies. It is also a matter of fact that four
out of twelve petitioners have applied against the advertisement issued
by Delhi High Court and their candidature was found to be
provisionally eligible in terms of the eligibility conditions mentioned
in the said advertisement. The petitioners who had been appointed in
the Establishment of District Court and now discontinued cannot
claim lien or right of absorption against the vacancies sought to be
filled by the Delhi High Court as the petitioners in the present writ
petition were neither appointed nor discontinued by the Establishment
Branch of the High Court of Delhi.
16. The petitioners in the instant writ petition, who were engaged
on contractual basis as "System Officer" and "System Assistant" in
the subordinate courts to the Delhi High Court, i.e. Office of District
& Sessions Judge, Delhi under e-Courts Mission Mode project, have
no connection with the appointments with the Delhi High Court
establishment pursuant to vacancy circular dated 22.7.2015. The post
for which vacancy notice was issued by Delhi High Court for
appointment to the post of JJA(T) was created and rules were framed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.07.2022
15:22:33
vide orders dated 13.03.2013 of the Chairman, Computer Committee,
Delhi High Court, which was constituted to examine the matter
regarding creation of posts and framing of recruitment rules/ Cadre
structure for technical management of the computer system of Delhi
High Court. The same was approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on
18.04.2013. The vacancy notice dated 22.07.2015 issued by Delhi
High Court for appointment to the post of JJA(T) in Delhi High Court
thus has no connection with the petitioners, who were engaged on
contractual basis and were deployed in subordinate Courts purely on
temporary and contractual basis.
17. We, therefore, find no merit in the present writ petition. The
same is dismissed with no orders as to cost.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
JULY 18, 2022
SS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.07.2022
15:22:33
