The court's decision emphasized that regularisation/absorption is not a mode of appointment and that the issuance of an advertisement shall attract talent and regularising/absorbing the petitioners without considering all eligible persons through a process open to the public shall violate Article 14.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. The present petition has been filed alleging that the Respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 5397/2022 (`writ petition'), whereby, the Respondent was directed to continue with the services of the Petitioner and it was directed that as and when the Respondent decides to fill the posts of Technical Assistants (`TAs') through open selection, the original petitioners were to be given the benefit of age relaxation and certain marks for completing each year of engagement with the Respondent.

1.1. It is stated in this petition that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated 21.12.2022, which while extending services of the other TAs did not include the name of the Petitioner herein.

1.2. It is further stated that the Petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2023 made against the termination order dated 12.01.2023 has not been responded to till date.

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that there were twenty-six (26) petitioners in the writ petition, however, the Respondent after the passing of this Court's order dated 07.04.2022 have selectively not extended the appointment of some of the original petitioners, including the Petitioner herein.

2.1. He states that the Petitioner's services have been discontinued vide termination order dated 12.01.2023, which is in violation of this Court's order dated 07.04.2022.

2.2. He states that the non-renewal/termination of the services of the Petitioner is a wilful and deliberate act of disobedience.

3. In response, the learned counsel for the Respondent states that the services of the Petitioner have been discontinued as the regular incumbent has joined the University i.e., Ambedkar, Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University at Shakarpur Campus-1, Delhi. In this regard, he relies upon the office order dated 12.01.2023, filed as Annexure P-6 to the present petition.

3.1. He states that the selection and recruitment process is not carried out by the Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University (`DSEU') but it is carried out by the parent department i.e., the Directorate of Training and Technical Education (`DTTE'). He states that DTTE has not been made party to the present contempt petition.

3.2. He states that the continuation or extension of all the TAs, who were appointed on a contractual basis, was subject to the appointment of regular incumbent through direct recruitment.

3.3. He states that since the direct recruit has been appointed, the Petitioner's contractual services have been rightly terminated. He states that this is also in conformity with the terms and conditions of the TAs appointed on a contractual basis.

3.4. He states that extension of time given to the TAs, appointed on contractual basis was expressly subject to the position being filed by direct recruitment. In this regard, he relies upon the contents of the office order dated 06.09.2022.

3.5. He states that there has been no breach of this Court's order dated 07.04.2022 and the present petition is not maintainable.

4. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and is unable to accept the contentions of the Petitioner.

5. The original petitioners in the writ petition had sought a substantive relief to the effect that they are entitled to absorption and regularisation from the date of the filing of the petition. The Coordinate Bench after recording the facts of the case categorically opined that since the original petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis, upon their failure to apply for regular selection, the writ petition itself deserved to be dismissed. The Court further held that their claim for regularisation is not maintainable. The relevant paragraph of the judgment dated 07.04.2022 reads as under:

"10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is conceded by Mr. Kumar that the initial selection was through the process of walk-in-interview and th