Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
University of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Delhi University Contract Employees Union and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1007, 1008 of 2021
Decided On : 25-03-2021
Service Law – Regularisation – Non-teaching posts – Contract employees – As on day when judgment in Umadevi1 was delivered by this Court, contract employees had put in just about 3 to 4 years of service – But, as of now, most of them have completed more than 10 years of service on contract basis – Though benefit of regularization cannot be granted, a window of opportunity must be given to them to compete with available talent through public advertisement – A separate and exclusive test meant only for contract employees will not be an answer as that would confine zone of consideration to contract employees themselves – Modality suggested by University, on other hand, will give them adequate chance and benefit to appear in ensuing selection – Benefit of age relaxation as contemplated in affidavit without any qualification must be extended to all contract employees – Those employees who were engaged in year 2011 be given benefit of 10 marks in ensuing selection process while for every additional year that a contract employee had put in, benefit of one more mark subject to ceiling of 8 additional marks be given – If a contract employee was engaged for first time in year 2010, he shall be entitled to benefit of 11 marks, while one engaged since 2003 shall be given 18 marks, as against appointee of 2011 who will have advantage of only 10 marks – Contract appointees of 2012 and 2013 will have advantage of 9 and 8 marks respectively – Public Notice inviting applications from candidates shall specifically state that advantage in terms of order passed by this Court would be conferred upon contract employees so that other candidates are put to adequate notice – All contract employees shall be entitled to offer their candidature for ensuing selection in next four weeks and in order to give them sufficient time to prepare, test shall be undertaken only after three months of receipt of applications from candidates – Contract employees in present case cannot claim relief of regularization in terms of paragraph 53 of decision in Umadevi1 – Rejection of their petition by Single Judge of High Court was quite correct and there was no occasion for Division Bench to interfere in the matter – Appeals disposed of with observations. (Paras 11, 12, 13 and 17)
Facts of the case:
By communication dated 31.08.1999 the University Grants Commission imposed a ban on filling up of non-teaching posts in all institutes/universities and the affiliated colleges. On 12.01.2011 the UGC sanctioned and allowed the University to fill up 255 posts of Junior Assistants while suggesting changes in Recruitment Rules of University. Accordingly, Recruitment Rules (Non-Teaching Employees) 2008 were amended by the University and an advertisement was published on 06.11.2013 in the leading newspapers inviting applications for 255 posts of Junior Assistants in the University. However, during the period from 2003 to 2013 various appointments were made by the University on contract basis as a result of which about 300 Junior Assistants are presently in the employment of the University on contract basis, most of whom are members of the Union. In the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.11.2013, the Junior Assistants employed on contractual basis, also participated. All contractual appointees were granted age relaxation. However, only 120 regular appointments could be made by the University out of which 10 were contractual appointees and members of the Union.
Findings of Court:
Paragraphs 6 & 7 of the affidavit with the modifications as directed will subserve the purpose. Such directions will not only afford chance to the contract employees to participate in selection process regardless of their age but will also entitle them to some advantage over the other participants. Similarly, those contract employees who have put in more number of years as against the other contract employees, will also have a comparative advantage.
Result : Appeals disposed of with observations
JUDGMENT :
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 989/2013. The appeal preferred by University of Delhi (“the University” for short) i.e. Civil Appeal No. 1007 of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) No. 17486 of 2017 is taken as the lead matter.
2. While allowing the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the Delhi University Contract Employees’ Union (“the Union” for short) and Others, following conclusions were arrived at and directions were issued by the Division Bench of the High Court:-
(I) The decision of the University of Delhi to grant one time age exemption to all contract labour who may have served for over a year on such basis for participating in the selection in effect is in the nature of the Scheme postulated by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of Umadevi. It cannot be denied that such opportunity to participate in the selection process has to be meaningful.
(II) In view of the age relaxation given by the University of Delhi, an opportunity to undergo the selection process was made available to all contract employees who had worked for one year or more on contract. As a result of such opportunity, the contract workers were rendered entitled to be tested on a realistic and fair scale and benchmark. There is substance in the grievance of the contractual employees that to test them on the same standards as new applicants is to deprive them of a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate in the selection process.
(III) The Delhi University admits that the contract employees who applied under the last recruitment drive i.e. 6th November, 2013 possessed the requisite qualifications as per the recruitment rules of 2008. Regular vacant posts were available when they were appointed. Therefore, so far as all those who applied are concerned, their qualifications stand verified. Furthermore, their original appointments could also, at the worst, be termed irregular and not illegal.
(IV) There is substance in the grievance of the appellants that pursuant to the notification dated 6th November, 2013, they have not been subjected to a test that is fair and appropriate for them. The respondent-University ought to have designed an appropriate mechanism for testing the appellants having regard to the date when they would have acquired their qualifications. Beside the appointment drive conducted by the respondent-University, they have regular post available for making appointments pursuant to a test appropriately designed for the appellants and other persons based like them.
(V) The appellants and others like them have served the organisation for long years, and, it is evident that even if their having acquired academic qualifications much before the new applicants, the deficiency, if any, is made good by the valuable experience acquired by them by virtue of the years of service. The learned Single Judge has fallen into error in treating the writ petition as one seeking a relief of regularisation.
(VI) The respondents were unable to fill up the vacancies pursuant to the process initiated by the notification dated 6th November, 2013 which are still available.
(VII) In view of the passage of time, it would be unfair to the appellants as well as the respondents to remand the matter for consideration of the above. This court is adequately empowered to mould the relief to ensure complete justice to the parties.
Result:
102. In view thereof, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the University of Delhi to design and hold an appropriate test for selection in terms of the notification dated 6th November, 2013 having regard to the fact that the persons working on contract basis covered under the notification dated 6th November, 2013 had obtained their essential qualifications much before the fresh applicants; that they have rendered satisfactory service and bring with them the benefit of the knowledge acquired by experience gained
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
