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
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
AI
Temporary project-based employment does not confer rights for regularization beyond the project's duration.
Employees appointed on project-based contracts funded by external agencies cannot claim continuation after project termination, adhering to established constitutional principles of public employment.
Employment under a project is temporary and ceases upon project completion unless otherwise agreed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of replacing adhoc employees with another set of adhoc employees and the need for fair consideration of adhoc employees for regular....
Regularization of temporary employees after five years of continuous service is a right supported by legal precedents.
Temporary and contractual employment under specific schemes is coterminous with the project duration, barring rights to permanency or regularization based on performance, emphasizing service conditio....
Long service on a contractual basis does not confer a legal right to regularization without a formal scheme in place, as established by Supreme Court precedents.
Perpetual outsourcing of perennial public functions like school IT education unconstitutional; long-serving teachers entitled to regularization on parity grounds, prohibiting ad-hocism and upholding ....
Prolonged PPP contractual service on perennial government posts attracts Arts. 14, 16 protections; mandates continuity, equal pay till regularization.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.