Contractual employees cannot be replaced without adhering to established recruitment procedures, ensuring their rights under public employment principles.

ORDER

Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):

M.A No. 3792/2023 :-

The present M.A filed by the applicants for joining together in a single OA stands allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

O.A No. 3288/2023 :-

The instant OA has been filed by Shri Sachin Sharma and 17 other similarly placed applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) To quash and set aside the impugned Advertisement dated October 2023 (uploaded on the website of the Respondent No.2 on 12.10.2023); and

(ii) To continue with the services of the Applicants in the respective posts without any further interview;

(iii) To direct the Respondents not to replace the service of the Applicants by any other sources except by way of regular appointment and allowing the Applicants to serve the Respondent Department till the regular appointment on the posts.

(iv) accord all consequential benefits thereafter;

(v) award cost of the proceedings;

(vi) pass any other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow cost in favour of the Applicant.".

2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that they have been working as Craft Instructors on contract basis (to be paid on hourly basis) in various Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) under Department of Training and Technical Education (DTTE), GNCTD since 2019. On 20.07.2019 the respondents – DTTE issued an advertisement for engagement of Craft Instructors on contract basis for the period from 20.12.2019 to 31.07.2020 and a revised advertisement on 28.07.2019 amending some clauses of the advertisement pursuant to which the applicants were appointed. The respondents again issued another advertisement on 12.10.2023 on the same conditions thereby attempting to replace the applicants. Aggrieved, the applicants approached the department; however, the department insisted that they should compete as fresh candidates along with others. Thus, the applicants have been compelled to file the instant OA.

3. This matter was heard at the stage of admission hearing on 20.10.2023, and the following order was passed which inter alia stated as under :-

“In the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the respondents shall not declare the result of 18 posts against which the present applicants in the OA had been engaged, without leave of this Tribunal. However, the respondents may declare the result for the remaining posts.”

4. Subsequently, the counsel of the applicants has been constantly pressing that this case is squarely covered by two decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in :

(i) Kavita & Others vs. GNCTD & Others in OA No. 2302/2019 decided on 23.01.2020 and

(ii) Nisha & Others vs. GNCTD in OA No. 1339/2020 decided on 07.02.2023.

5. However, the counsel of the respondent has been opposing the arguments of the counsel of the applicants and during the course of hearing on 21.08.2024 had submitted that he would need some time to seek instructions.

6. On 17.09.2025, when this matter was heard, counsel of the applicants relied upon and handed across the Bar a catena of Judgments which are listed below :-

(i) State of Haryana & Others vs. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118];

(ii) State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [(2006) (4) SCC 1];

(iii) Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. vs. Director General of Police, Assam and Ors. [(2009) 6 SCC 611];

(iv) Kamlesh Kumar Vyas & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(MANU/SCOR/10082/2015];

(v) Commissioner KVS vs. Anil Kumar Singh [2003 (10) SCC 284];

(vi) Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors. [2007 (13) SCC 292];

(vii) Talat Parvez Rohella and Ors. vs. Meenakshi Devi & Ors. [MANU/SCOR/48257/2022];

(viii