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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Sanjeev Kumar Vishwakarma - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9647 of 2020, CM No. 30902 of 2020 and W.P.(C) 2093 of 2021 & CM Appls. 6128 of 2021, 6129 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 2126 of 2021 & CM Appls. 6216 of 2021, 6217 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 2139 of 2021 & CM Appls. 6231-6232 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 2141 of 2021 & CM
Decided On : 15-03-2021




Temporary project-based employment does not confer rights for regularization beyond the project's duration.

Headnote:(A) Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme (TEQIP) - Project-based employment - Engagement of petitioners as Assistant Professors funded by the World Bank ceased upon project termination on March 31, 2021 - Employment was temporary and did not confer rights for regularization. (Paras 4, 19, 21, 24)

(B) Employment Rights - Petitioners could not claim continuance beyond project life as their roles were co-terminus with the funding cycle - Reliance on case law regarding temporary appointments under specific schemes established limitations on claims for permanence. (Paras 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought continuation in their roles during the pendency of their petitions, asserting good academic records and public interest. The respondent disputed jurisdiction and validity of claims based on the nature of appointment tied to the project.

Findings of Court:
The petitions did not hold merit as project-based employment is contingent upon project existence; thus, petitioners are not entitled to regularization or continued engagement.

Issues: Whether petitioners are entitled to reliefs given their temporary employment status linked to a time-bound project.

Ratio Decidendi: The appointment of petitioners was inherently linked to the TEQIP project funded by an external source, ceasing to exist with project completion; hence, no grounds for regularization may be claimed.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

ORDER

Exemptions, if any, in these petitions are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application (s) stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3300/2021

W.P.(C) 3302/2021

W.P.(C) 3314/2021

1. These are fresh petitions, filed by the petitioners. Notice, Mr. L.M. Acharya, Special Counsel accepts notice for respondent/UOI. Mr. Anil Soni, Standing Counsel accepts notice for respondent/AICTE and Mr. Neeraj Verma, Advocate accepts notice for respondent/NIT.

2. As the issue in these three writ petitions is similar to the issue which falls for consideration in connected batch of writ petitions, they are also heard and decided together, vide this common judgment.

3. In terms of order dated February 16, 2021, it was directed that W.P.(C) 9647/2021 shall be the lead writ petition. So, the facts/pleadings in the said writ petition are being narrated for deciding these petitions.

W.P.(C) 9647/2020

4. The prayer as made in petition are the following:

"For the facts and circumstances stated in the accompanying writ petition, it is most, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to: -

a. Direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in service on the post of "Assistant Professor" and also pay him regular salary/remuneration, during the pendency of instant writ petition, in the interest of justice;

b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of "Associate Professor" till regular selection is held and finalized for the said post;

c. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to allow the petitioner to perform the duties attached to the post of "Assistant Professor" and further pay him regular salary/remuneration, as and when the same becomes dues as per AICTE Rules and Regulations;

d. Pass such other/further order/orders or direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate on the facts and circumstances of the case."

5. Suffice to state the aforesaid are the prayers in all the writ petitions.

6. The facts as noted from the record are, that during 1980s, the Government of India and the State Governments had felt the need for revamping the Technician Education System in the country to make it demand-driven with relevant courses in new and emerging technologies, with adequate infrastructure resources, competent faculty and effective teaching-learning processes. The Government of India supported 25 State Governments and Union Territories of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry through three Technician Education Projects during 1991-2007, financed by the World Bank, which helped to strengthen and upgrade the system and benefitted 552 polytechnics.

7. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by Mr. Jayant Mehta, that the success of these projects encouraged the Government of India and the State Governments to seek more funding from the World Bank for systemic transformation of the Technical Education system with focus on Degree level Engineering Education. In 2002-03, the Government of India with financial assistance from the World Bank launched a "Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme (TEQIP)" as a long-term programme, to be implemented in three phases for systemic transformation of the Technical Education System.

8. He submits that the first phase of TEQIP commenced in March 2003 and ended in March, 2009, benefitting 127 institutions in 13 States. This project covered less than 10% of the institutions that existed then. The second phase of Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme (TEQIP-II) commenced in 2009 and lasted till March 2017. The programme was designed to meet the following objectives:

1. Strengthening Institutions to produce high quality Engineers for better Employability.

2. Scaling-up Postgraduate Education and demand-driven Research & Development and Innovation.

3. Est

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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