Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
APOORVI SOOD – Appellant
Versus
NETAJI SUBHAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ORS. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JYOTI SINGH, J.
1. These writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioners for a direction to the Respondents to treat/declare their services as Assistant Professor (IT) in the Division of IT, Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology (‘NSIT’) as permanent/regular with consequential benefits from the date of their respective appointments. Since common question of law arises in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary and emerging from the writ petitions is that NSIT published an advertisement in the Employment News dated 20-26.10.2012 for Faculty positions inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in various departments of NSIT, which is an Autonomous Body under the Government of NCT of Delhi and is affiliated to the University of Delhi. Last date of the applications was 12.11.2012 and Petitioners applied and were shortlisted for the interview scheduled on 13.06.2014. On the basis of their credentials and performance in the interview, Petitioners were recommended for appointments and received offer letters dated 28.07.2014 to the post of Assistant Profe
Employers must clearly specify the nature of appointments in job advertisements; failure to do so leads to regularization of initially contractual positions when recruitment processes are followed.
The court recognized the right of the State to appoint persons on temporary basis to meet its exigencies, and held that the failure of the ATTC to maintain the student to lecturer ratio and the petit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the retrospective application of amended rules introducing contractual mode of appointments to the disadvantage of the incumbents is impermiss....
Only employees appointed through a proper recruitment process against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularisation; temporary appointments do not confer such rights.
Temporary employees cannot claim regularization without meeting Supreme Court criteria, including continuous service without interim protection.
Temporary employees lack a legal right to regularization unless appointed per relevant rules; participation in selection waives claims for regularization.
Contractual employees have no right to claim regularization or equivalent benefits unless stipulated by law, as established by precedent.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
