Valmiki J. Mehta, J.:-- (Oral)

W.P.(C) 7942/2014 & CM APPL. 18623/2014

1. In this writ petition the following reliefs are sought:

“(a) Quash and set aside the advertisement dated 01.11.2014 qua the post of Deputy Director (Administration)

(b) Direct the respondents to honor/implement their conscious decision taken in Governing Council Meetings (08.06.2012 in Agenda No. 4 (5) and 24.09.2013 in Agenda No. 10) by considering regularization the services of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director (Administration) with all consequential benefits;

(c) Pass any further order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case,

(d) Award cost in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” (underlining added)

2. Connected writ petitions titled as Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 471/2015 and Som Dutt and Ors. v. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 474/2015 were dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 22.1.2015 and this Court made the following observations for denying the claim of regularization to the persons similarly placed to petitioner in Som Dutt’s (supra) case:

“14. Petitioners in this case seek appointment as Lab Technicians/Lab Assistants. In the present case, the relief which is claimed by the petitioners of their being regularized cannot be granted because if petitioners are specifically appointed for contractual period in terms of the advertisement which required only contractual employment for 11 months, then, if the petitioners are regularized only because they were appointed against sanctioned posts, the same would be clearly a violation of the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) because if the petitioners are directed to be regularized merely because there existed sanctioned posts, although the advertisement and appointments were only and specifically for 11 months only, then what will happen is that by issuing of an advertisement by the respondent No. 2 which was only for contractual appointments of a limited period of 11 months, injustice would be caused to dozens or hundreds of other persons who would not have applied to the posts on the ground that the posts are contractual posts only for 11 months and such persons, being the ordinary citizens, who therefore would seek appointment with other employers who would offer permanent posts. If this Court allows regularization of the petitioners, and merely because petitioners are appointed against sanctioned posts, the spirit of the ratio of Umadevi’s case (supra) would be violated because then in such cases the authorities of the State instead of making regular appointments to sanctioned posts, will advertise and make contractual appointments to sanctioned posts for specified periods, and thereby play a fraud upon general public being persons who would have applied if the posts were advertised as permanent posts. Thus regularization cannot be granted only because petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts, once the advertisement and appointments were only for a limited period of just 11 months.

15. It is not the ratio of Umadevi’s case (supra) that contractual employees must be regularized only because there are vacant sanctioned posts to which they were appointed to limited contractual period of mere 11 months, inasmuch as, Umadevi (supra) requires that the appointments must be as per the regular recruitment process and rules which will require advertisement for appointments as permanent posts, and much less because in terms of the ratio of the Umadevi’s case (supra), the Delhi State Services Selection Board (DSSSB), and who appoints employees for the respondent No. 2, has already issued a circular that there should not be appointments to regular posts except in accordance with the law and the process as specified in the regular recruitment rules.”

3. At this stage, I may also state that para 12 of the judgment dated 22.1.2015 p