Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 2469
DELHI HIGH COURT
Valmiki J.Mehta, J.
Delhi University Contract Employees & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi & Ors. - Resopndent
W.P.(C) No. 7929/2013
Decided On : 16-12-2013
For the Respondent:Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Santosh Kumar, Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Sweety Manchanda, CGSC with Mr. Debashish Mukherjee, Mr. Z.H.Issac Haiding, Advocates for R-UOI.
Regular recruitment processes must be followed for sanctioned posts with vacancies, and the court's intervention in regular selection or recruitment processes is limited.
Headnote:
Regularization - Contractual Employees - Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 - The court discussed the principles laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. and highlighted the requirements for regularization, the distinction between regular and temporary employees, and the limitations on court intervention in regular recruitment processes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the selection process for regular appointments and requested regularization of their contractual posts. The court relied on the principles established in the Umadevi case to dismiss the petition, emphasizing that regular recruitment processes must be followed for sanctioned posts with vacancies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' claims were settled against by the Umadevi judgment, and that the regular selection process could not be interdicted. It also noted the lifting of a ban on regular recruitments by the respondent-University.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' request for quashing the selection process and regularization of their contractual posts, and the applicability of the Umadevi judgment to the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from the Umadevi case to conclude that the petitioners' reliefs could not be granted, as regular recruitment processes must be followed for sanctioned posts with vacancies.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
Valmiki J. Mehta, J (ORAL);—
CM No.16800/2013(Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No. 7929/2013 & CM 16799/2013 (Stay)
1. By this writ petition, petitioners including petitioner no.1 which is a union of contractual employees’, seek the relief of quashing of the selection process for regular appointments initiated by respondent no.1 pursuant to the advertisement dated 6.11.2013. Petitioners also seek relief of their being regularized to their posts which they are holding, and which posts are contractual posts.
2. All the issues which have been urged in the present petition stand settled against the petitioners by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1.The Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) has laid down the following ratio:-
“(I) The questions to be asked before regularization are:- (a)(i) Was there a sanctioned post (court cannot order creation of posts because finances of the state may go haywire), (ii) is there a vacancy, (iii) are the persons qualified persons and (iv) are the appointments through regular recruitment process of calling all possible persons and which process involves inter-se competition among the candidates (b) A court can condone an irregularity in the appointment procedure only if the irregularity does not go to the root of the matter.
(II) For sanctioned posts having vacancies, such posts have to be filled by regular recruitment process of prescribed procedure otherwise, the constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 14,16,309, 315, 320 etc is violated.
(III) In case of existence of necessary circumstances the government has a right to appoint contract employees or casual labour or employees for a project, but, such persons form a class in themselves and they cannot claim equality(except possibly for equal pay for equal work) with regular employees who form a separate class. Such temporary employees cannot claim legitimate expectation of absorption/regularization as they knew when they were appointed that they were temporary inasmuch as the government did not give and nor could have given an assurance of regularization without the regular recruitment process being followed. Such irregularly appointed persons cannot claim to be regularized alleging violation of Article 21. Also the equity in favour of the millions who await public employment through the regular recruitment process outweighs the equity in favour of the limited number of irregularly appointed persons who claim regularization.
(IV) Once there are vacancies in sanctioned posts such vacancies cannot be filled in except without regular recruitment process, and thus neither the court nor the executive can frame a scheme to absorb or regularize persons appointed to such posts without following the regular recruitment process.
(V) At the instance of persons irregularly appointed the process of regular recruitment shall not be stopped. Courts should not pass interim orders to continue employment of such irregularly appointed persons because the same will result in stoppage of recruitment through regular appointment procedure.
(VI) If there are sanctioned posts with vacancies, and qualified persons were appointed without a regular recruitment process, then, such persons who when the judgment of Uma Devi is passed have worked for over 10 years without court orders, such persons be regularized under schemes to be framed by the concerned organization.
(VII) The aforesaid law which applies to the Union and the States will also apply to all instrumentalities of the State governed by Article 12 of the Constitution”.
3. Para-4 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi(supra) specifically directs that Courts should desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of persons who are only adhoc/contractual/casual employees and who have not secured regular appointm
