The main legal point established in the judgment is that contract employees do not per se have the right to claim salaries equal to that of regular employees. The court emphasized the need for due care and caution in giving directions for regularization and highlighted the importance of balancing public interests against individual rights.

( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions it has been prayed that appropriate writs, orders or directions may be issued to the Respondents for the regularization of the services of the Petitioners with all benefits as are being given to regular teachers and for prohibiting the Respondents from terminating their services. According to the Petitioners they have been engaged as Teachers by the NDMC on contractual tenures which has generally been extended on more than one occasion. The submission is that on the average these Teachers have served for about three years. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submit that the Petitioners have been engaged on contractual basis and it had been clarified that the engagement would not confer any right on them to claim regular appointment. On every occasion when the contract was renewed it had also been clarified that the extension would continue for the tenure or till posts are filled-up on regular basis, whichever is earlier. The Recruitment Rules prescribe that teachers who fall in category `c must be selected by an independent body such as the DSSSB. All the Petitioners were engaged on the basis of "walk in interview" conducted by NDMC. Contrary to the submissions of the Petitioners the stance of the NDMC is that they have recently been engaged between the years 2001-2003. The earliest that any Petitioner has been engaged is of year 1999. During the pendency of the writ petitions on account of resettlement of jhugies outside NDMC area some schools had to be closed and/or merged with other schools, thereby rendering a number of teachers surplus. It is for this reason that the earlier requisition sent to the DSSSB has been withdrawn. Nine balwari Teachers have been appointed by the DSSSB on regular basis. No vacancy to the post of TGT exists.

( 2 ) IT appears that the NDMC has initiated steps to fill up the existing vacancies through the ageis of the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to whom it has sent its requisitions. Learned counsel for the Respondents have argued that the power to effect appointments vests with the DSSSB but this is devoid of any merit. There is a distinction between selection and appointment; while ndmc may have no role to play in the former, the DSSSB has no say in the latter. These petitions have been filed in the wake of regular recruitment through the dsssb and the consequent anxiety that services of the Petitioners shall be brought to an end. Learned counsel for the NDMC have firstly stated that it is not proposing to terminate the services of the Petitioners before the expiry of their respective contract periods. Secondly, they state that the NDMC also has no intention to replace the Petitioners by other teachers who would be engaged on a contractual basis. Thirdly, they assure the Court that consequent on recruitment by means of the regular selection process through the DSSSB, in the event of the Petitioners become surplus the policy of `last come first go shall definitely be adhered to. Fourthly, learned counsel for the Respondents have also conceded that it would be legally impermissible for the Respondents to disqualify any of the Petitioners for regular selection on the ground of their having crossed the maximum age limit; if they choose to appear in the regular selection examinations, age relaxation shall be granted. These submissions have obviated any consideration of the impact of Article 14 on the facts of the case. A. Contract Employee claim for equal pay for equal work

( 3 ) THIS legal principle had been invoked by learned counsel for the petitioners during arguments. The preponderant view enunciated by the hon ble Supreme Court is that persons similarly placed as the Petitioners would not per se have the right to claim salaries equal to that of regular employees. The observations made in the thought provoking decision titled Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 879, although it