Delhi High Court
Ekta Mahar & Ors. vs Delhi Skill And Entrepreneurship ... on 13 February, 2024
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 2044/2024
EKTA MAHAR & ORS ..... Petitioner
versus
DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
UNIVERSITY & ORS ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Daisy Hannah, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Bikram
Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Counsel
with Ms. Surbhi Soni, Advocates for R-
2.
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, SPC with
Mr. JHilal Haider, GP for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India inter alia seeking the following reliefs:-
"a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby
setting aside the impugned Notice No.
F.No.12(136)/DSEU/HR/2023/601 dated 03.01.2024
issued the Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University
(DSEU) and consequently, appoint the petitioners to their
respective posts with all consequential benefits thereof,
including seniority, backwages, continuity of services etc;
b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby
directing the Respondent No.1 not to start afresh
recruitment process;..."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that after the advertisement No.
01/2022 was issued by respondent no.1-Delhi Skill and
Entrepreneurship University (DSEU), the petitioners had participated in
the entire process and were declared successful. She submits that, that
apart, they had cleared all stages uptill the final stage, except that the
appointment letters were to be issued to the petitioners.
3. Despite waiting for a long time, no appointment letters were
issued to the present petitioners. Upon filing number of representations,
no response could be elicited from respondent no.1.
4. Upon filing a query under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the
petitioners were informed that 16 out of 43 successful candidates were
already given appointment letters and so far as the remaining candidates
are concerned, on the strength of an OM of the DoPT, directing that the
appointments should not be give beyond the period of one year, the
respondent had cancelled the appointment of the petitioners.
5. Ms. Daisy Hannah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the said cancellation is not only contrary to the law but also to the
facts of the case inasmuch as the petitioners, who were successful
candidates and were awaiting their appointment letters, could not have
been deprived of such valuable fundamental right, except in accordance
with law.
6. Ms. Hannah submits that at the moment, the petitioners would be
satisfied in case the present writ petition is treated as a representation
with a direction to the respondent no.1 to dispose of the same within a
short period.
7. Mr. Shivendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.1 submits that, as of now, there is no proposal for filling up the
vacancies. He submits that the respondent no.1 would comply with the
directions so passed by this Court.
8. In view of the aforesaid, it appears to be appropriate to direct that
the present writ petition be considered as a representation and disposed
of by the competent authority of DSEU.
9. The said exercise be completed within a period of two weeks
from today. An opportunity of hearing shall also be given to one of the
petitioners by the competent authority before a reasoned order is passed.
10. The petition is disposed of with the above directions.
11. Dasti.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
FEBRUARY 13, 2024
Aj
