Point of law: Employment and Service matter – Ad-hoc employee - Unsatisfactory service - Termination from service - Whenever the continuance of a probationer/temporary teacher need to be decided, surely the performance of such an employee/teacher is required to be looked into. In the case at hand, the unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner has led the Authority concerned to discontinue her services (though on ad-hoc basis).

JUDGMENT :

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

“A. Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, thereby quashing and setting aside advertisement dated 27-10-2020;

B. Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, thereby directing the Respondent No.1 & 2 to reinstate the petitioner from 10-08-2020 and award all full consequential benefits;

C. Issue Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, thereby restraining the Respondents from replacing the Petitioner with another Adhoc assistant professor until permanent faculty is appointed;

D. Award appropriate costs in the facts and circumstances of the case;

E. Any other or further order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed/issued in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. The respondent No.1 is University of Delhi, a Central University regulated under the Delhi University Act, 1922 and rules and regulations thereto. Respondent No. 2 is an aided recognized College of respondent No.1. At the outset, I may note that vide Order dated November 4, 2020, respondent No.3/Union of India was considered as a proforma party. It is also noted, vide order dated November 26, 2020, respondent No.1 adopted the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2/College.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was issued by the respondent No.2/College for making appointment to the two posts of Assistant Professor in Psychology/Commerce on ad-hoc basis. The appointment in the Psychology discipline was reserved for a SC candidate. The petitioner applied against the same, i.e., Psychology discipline under the reserved category. The petitioner, being found successful in the selection process, was appointed as Assistant Professor (Psychology) on ad-hoc basis with effect from August 05, 2019. The said appointment was for a period of four months till December 04, 2019. On her appointment, the petitioner was assigned duty roster and time table for delivering lectures on the prescribed syllabus of the subject.

4. In December 2019, after the winter break, 17 other ad-hoc Assistant Professors including the petitioner were not given joining but were only directed to join on January 01, 2020. It is her case that she was not paid salary for the month of December, 2019. She joined her duties as Assistant Professor (Psychology) on January 01, 2020 and was teaching in the respondent No.2/College till April 28, 2020. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the semester continued till June 12, 2020.

5. It is the case of the petitioner and as contended by her counsel that as per the Notification dated June 30, 2020 issued by the Govt. of India, no employee was to be removed during the COVID-19 Pandemic. He submitted that on July 17, 2020, the petitioner received an e-mail from the Teacher In-charge mentioning the excess workload. On July 21, 2020, the petitioner received time table of 18 classes per week and on July 27, 2021, the respondent No.2/College provided work to petitioner for college website.

6. On August 08, 2020, she was also assigned OBE duties. The next session resumed on August 10, 2020 and the Teacher In-charge signed the application of the petitioner for rejoining the respondent No.2/College but unfortunately the Principal of respondent No.2/College denied the joining of the petitioner. It is contended that on the intervention of the Delhi University Teachers’ Association (‘DUTA’, for short), the petitioner was orally informed that the joining of the petitioner shall be accepted. Despite such assurance, on August 11, 2020, Teacher In-charge communicated to the petitioner that the Principal has refused to assign classes to the petitioner even after orally accepting the joining letter. Several meetings took place between officials of the DUTA and the Principal