SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 5142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Dr. Geeta Oberoi – Appellant
Versus
National Judicial Academy – Respondent
W.P.(C) 8487 of 2023, CM APPL. 32341 of 2023, CM APPL. 32343 of 2023, CM APPL. 32342 of 2023
Decided On : 16-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Anand Grover, Senior Advocate with Ms. Gauri Puri, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG with Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Farman Ali, Mr. Aman Rewaria, Mr. Y. Shukla, Mr. Naman Tandon, Mr. Shyam Gopal, Mr. Prasanjeet Mohapatra, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The termination of a contractual employee's services after the expiry of the contract is not stigmatic or vindictive, and a contractual employee does not have a legitimate expectation for regular appointment.

Headnote:

Regular Appointment - Contractual Employment - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India - Clause 5 of the Contract of Service dated 04.08.2018 - Show Cause Notice dated 01.02.2021 - Executive Committee's Resolution dated 13.05.2023

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a professor at the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, sought relief against the termination of her services based on a show cause notice regarding her alleged role in obstructing the academy's security personnel from evicting stray dogs from the premises.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's services were terminated after the expiry of her contract, and she could not rely on the terms and conditions of the contract after its end. The court also noted that the petitioner's appointment was contractual, and she did not have a legitimate expectation for regular appointment.

Issues: Validity of termination based on show cause notice, nature of petitioner's appointment, reliance on contractual terms after contract expiry.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination of the petitioner's services after the expiry of her contract was not stigmatic or vindictive. The petitioner's appointment was contractual, and she did not have a legitimate expectation for regular appointment.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. This is a petition seeking the following substantial prayers:

    "a) Pass an appropriate Writ, Order, directions or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records of the case and after going through the same quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 22.05.2023 issued by the National Judicial Academy and declare that the same is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

    b) Pass an appropriate Writ, Order, directions or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Show Cause Notice dated 01.02.2021;

    c) Pass an appropriate Writ or any other writ order or direction directing the Respondent to renew the contract of service of the Petitioner in the same manner as the renewal of contract of service of the other employees of the Respondent until the age of superannuation;

    d) Pass an appropriate Writ or any other writ order or direction directing the Respondent to release all increments withheld and other consequential benefits that have been conferred on other similarly placed employees as the Petitioner;"

2. The petitioner is working at the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal since 2014 as a professor against a sanctioned post pursuant to an advertisement. The advertisement was issued on 11.06.2012 by the Respondent, inviting applications for filling up several vacancies on deputation or contract basis including the post of professor. The petitioner was appointed after following the open selection-cum-merit procedure. The respondent is the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal established under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is an independent society and an autonomous body which is fully funded by the Department of Justice, Government of India with an objective of providing training to the judicial officers of the states/union territories.

3. On 30.01.2014, the petitioner was issued a letter requiring her to appear for an interview before the Selection Committee on 01.03.2014 After the interview, vide letter dated 10.04.2014, the petitioner was appointed as a professor for an initial period of 3 years. A contract of service was executed on 17.08.2014.

4. Since there was no director officiating with the respondent, the petitioner vide letter dated 03.11.2014 was also given the responsibility of performing the duties of the Director of the National Judicial Academy till a new director was appointed.

5. On 28.07.2017 vide Office Order No. 82/17, the contract employment of the Petitioner was extended for a further period of 1-year w.e.f. 08.08.2017. The petitioner's contract was extended again for a period of 3 years w.e.f. from 08.08.2018. A fresh contract of service was executed on 04.08.2018.

6. Clause 5 of the Contract of Service dated 04.08.2018 reads as under:

    "..5. (a) Notwithstanding anything herein before contained, the Competent Authority of the Academy shall be empowered to summarily terminate the engagement of the Contract Employee on the ground of misconduct in accordance with the provisions herein after set forth.

    (b) The Competent Authority may when he finds it necessary in the interest of the Academy, suspend the Contract Employee on the ground of misconduct. Thereafter, he shall report it to the next Higher Authority for approval.

    (c) The Competent Authority or any officer appointed by him as Enquiry officer shall investigate all matters about the misconduct of the Contract Employee whether he/she has been suspended or not. The Contract Employee shall be notified in writing of the charges against him and shall be given not less than one week's time, which may be extended on good cause shown by such contract employee, to submit his explanation in writing.

    The competent Authority or the Enquiry Officer may hear the Contract Employee and take such evidence as it may consider necessary and submit its report to the next higher authority/competent authority. The Competent Authority may thereafter, determine the continued engagemen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top