2016 Supreme(Del) 4565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Gita Mittal, P.S. Teji, JJ.
Delhi University Contract Employees' Union and Others – Appellants
Versus
University of Delhi and Others – Respondents
LPA No. 989 of 2013 and CM Nos. 20764 of 2013, 10976 of 2014
Decided On : 22-11-2016

The University of Delhi was required to design an appropriate mechanism for testing the contractual employees having regard to the date when they acquired their qualifications.

Headnote:

WRIT - REGULARISATION OF SERVICES - CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES - SCHEME FOR REGULARISATION - AGE RELAXATION - FAIRNESS OF TEST - ELECTION - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION - DELHI UNIVERSITY. The appellants, contractual employees of the Delhi University, challenged the dismissal of their writ petition seeking regularisation of their services and quashing of the general selection process for appointment to the post of Junior Assistants. The University had issued advertisements inviting applications for appointment of Junior Assistants on contract basis and later issued a fresh advertisement inviting applications to 255 posts of Junior Assistant. The appellants contended that they were appointed on fixed tenure of six months at a time, their services terminated notionally for a cosmetic one day break to create the facade of termination of the appointment immediately followed by fresh appointment letter issued for six months. They asserted that out of the total of 714 posts, 512 have been lying vacant for the last several years and were not being filled up on regular basis for the last 12 to 15 years prior to the filing of the writ petition in December, 2013. The University contended that the appointments on contract basis were made from time to time either on the basis of limited advertisements or even without issuance of any advertisement at all. It was submitted that as per recruitment rules, direct recruitment/ open selection shall be made only after making an open advertisement in leading newspapers and employment news. The University also relied on the pronouncement in Umadevi case (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein it was held 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 appointments as per procedure established. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that no relief, as was being prayed for by the petitioners, could have been granted. The appellants challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge erred in treating the writ petition as one seeking regularisation and that the prayers made in the writ petition have not been considered and that, given the action and order of the University of Delhi, the writ petition could not have been dismissed. The Court held that 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. The Court further held that 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. The Court directed 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 while working on contract basis with the Delhi University.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, contractual employees of the Delhi University, challenged the dismissal of their writ petition seeking regularisation of their services and quashing of the general selection process for appointment to the post of Junior Assistants. The University had issued advertisements inviting applications for appointment of Junior Assistants on contract basis and later issued a fresh advertisement inviting applications to 255 posts of Junior Assistant. The appellants contended that they were appointed on fixed tenure of six months at a time, their services terminated notionally for a cosmetic one day break to create the facade of termination of the appointment immediately followed by fresh appointment letter issued for six months. They asserted that out of the total of 714 posts, 512 have been lying vacant for the last several years and were not being filled up on regular basis for the last 12 to 15 years prior to the filing of the writ petition in December, 2013. The University contended that the appointments on contract basis were made from time to time either on the basis of limited advertisements or even without issuance of any advertisement at all. It was submitted that as per recruitment rules, direct recruitment/ open selection shall be made only after making an open advertisement in leading newspapers and employment news. The University also relied on the pronouncement in Umadevi case (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein it was held 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 appointments as per procedure established. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that no relief, as was being prayed for by the petitioners, could have been granted. The appellants challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge erred in treating the writ petition as one seeking regularisation and that the prayers made in the writ petition have not been considered and that, given the action and order of the University of Delhi, the writ petition could not have been dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that 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. The Court further held that 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. The Court directed 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 while working on contract basis with the Delhi University.

Issues: 1. Whether the University of Delhi's decision to grant one-time age exemption to contractual employees for participating in the selection process was in the nature of the Scheme postulated by the Supreme Court in Umadevi? 2. Whether the opportunity to participate in the selection process was meaningful? 3. Whether the contractual employees were subjected to a fair and appropriate test? 4. Whether the University of Delhi was required to design an appropriate mechanism for testing the contractual employees having regard to the date when they acquired their qualifications?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The decision of the University of Delhi to grant one-time age exemption to contractual employees for participating in the selection process was in the nature of the Scheme postulated by the Supreme Court in Umadevi. 2. The opportunity to participate in the selection process was not meaningful as the contractual employees were tested on the same standards as new applicants, which deprived them of a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate in the selection process. 3. The contractual employees were not subjected to a fair and appropriate test as the University of Delhi failed to design an appropriate mechanism for testing them having regard to the date when they acquired their qualifications.

Final Decision: The Court directed 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 while working on contract basis with the Delhi University.