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.

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 Professor albeit on contract basis in PB-III of Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- with DA, HRA and TA as per the applicable rules.

3. It is averred that at that stage, Petitioners were in need of the job to support their respective families and accepted the appointments on contract basis though the advertisement did not mention that the applications were invited for contractual appointments. Petitioners were assured that their appointments will be on contract for initial period and will be considered as regular in due course. Over a period of time, realising that Petitioners were being treated on contract basis, they started representing for regularization of their appointments, however, finding no positive response, Petitioners preferred writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 4996/2018, titled Apoorvi Sood v. Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology and Ors. and W.P. (C) No.4957/2018, titled Dr. Priti Bansal v. Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology and Ors. , before this Court on 08.05.2018, which were disposed of on 09.05.2018 with liberty to the Petitioners to make a representation and direction to the Respondents to pass a speaking order. Despite representations made by the Petitioners, NSIT vide order dated 08.08.2018 rejected the request of the Petitioners to treat them as regular/permanent leading to filing of the present writ petitions.

4. Learned counsels for the Petitioners argue that Petitioners have been continuously working as Assistant Professors since 2014 on contract basis despite the fact that the advertisement and the consequent recruitment process by NSIT was meant for regular appointments and admittedly, there was no mention in the advertisement that applications were invited for appointment on contractual basis and thus it was not open to NSIT to appoint the Petitioners on contract. Drawing the attention of the Court to Minutes of the Selection Committee meeting held on 01.07.2014 and 02.07.2014, it is pointed out that it was the Selection Committee which on its own made selections internally in two categories i.e. general category and on contract basis and placed the names of the Petitioners under the category of contract appointees, which was not justified or within the powers