Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Ritu Singh - Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi - Respondent
LPA 181 of 2021 & CM Appls. 18427, 18428 and 18429 of 2021
Decided On : 04-06-2021
The court affirmed that performance assessments based on student feedback and results are valid for non-renewal of ad-hoc academic appointments, consistent with natural justice principles.
Headnote:(A) Delhi University Act, 1922 - Appointment procedures for ad-hoc faculty - The appointment was initially for a specific term and dependent on performance - The appellant argued that termination was unjustified and based on fabricated complaints - The court emphasized the necessity of performance evaluations based on student results and attendance. (Paras 2, 6, 12-14)
(B) Natural Justice - The court held that non-continuation of ad-hoc appointment was compliant with natural justice principles, as substantial evidence supported the decision. (Paras 6, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was appointed as an ad-hoc Assistant Professor in Psychology. Following student complaints and performance issues, her appointment was not extended, and she claimed victimization due to caste.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the college's decision, noting adequate evidence of unsatisfactory service, thus no violation of any rights occurred.
Issues: Whether the decision not to renew an ad-hoc appointment based on performance allegations was justifiable, and whether principles of natural justice were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the reliance on student performance and attendance was proper and did not contravene natural justice since the appellant was an ad-hoc employee without permanent rights.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenges prior judgment and appointment details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on unfair treatment and evidence handling. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's reliance on unsatisfactory performance evidence. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. rejection of victimization claims based on caste. (Para 9) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal for lack of merit. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)
The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.
CM APPL. 18428/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 18429/2021 (Permission to File the Additional Documents)
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
LPA 181/2021 & CM APPL. 18427/2021
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated of 12.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.8650/2020 filed by the appellant, dismissing the same.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent no.2/College for making appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Psychology on ad-hoc basis, the appellant was found successful and was appointed with effect from 05.08.2019. The offer of appointment was for a period from 05.08.2019 to 04.12.2019 or till the vacancy against which the appellant was appointed is filled through proper procedure laid down by the University of Delhi. The appellant was re-appointed to the said post vide letter dated 01.01.2020 from the period 01.01.2020 to 20.04.2020. The appellant claimed that even thereafter, as the semester had been extended till 12.06.2020 due to the lockdown declared on the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the appellant continued to discharge her duties. The appellant further submits that even thereafter, various duties were assigned to her till as late as August, 2020. The appellant submits that on 11.08.2020, she was informed that her tenure has not been extended. Thereafter, she made a representation, however, the respondents issued a fresh advertisement for appointment to the said post. Being aggrieved, she filed the above petition.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant being an ad-hoc employee cannot be substituted with another employee employed on ad-hoc basis. He further submits that the respondent has acted with mala fide. He submits that the respondent has also not placed the entire record before the learned Single Judge in form of the attendance of the students in the Psychology (Hons.) classes taken by her and the result of the students in the said course.
4. He submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in placing reliance on an unsigned and unverified alleged complaint received by the respondent no.2 against the appellant from the students as against the WhatsApp messages that the appellant had placed on record from the students recording their appreciation for the teaching methods of the appellant. He submits that, in fact, the appellant was being victimized as she belongs to a Scheduled Caste category.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, however, have found no merit in the submissions.
6. The learned Single Judge in his Impugned Order has also rejected similar submissions observing as under:
"12. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, the issue that arises for consideration is whether the respondent No.2/College is justified in not allowing the petitioner to continue to work as Assistant Professor, Psychology on ad-hoc basis in the respondent No.2/College. The case of the respondent No.2/College is primarily that complaints have been received from the students with regard to petitioner's manner of teaching. The respondent No.2/College has also relied upon the results achieved by the students in Psychology examinations, which was the subject taught by the petitioner. It is their case also, that the attendance in
