IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: March 12, 2021

+

W.P.(C) 8650/2020, CM 27844/2020

DR. RITU SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Adv. with

Mr. Shubhendu Saxena, Adv.

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ACTING VICE

CHANCELLOR & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ankur Chhibber,

Mr.Anshuman Mehrotra and

Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advs. for

R-1 & 2.

Mr.Nirvikar Verma, Adv. for

UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

J U D G M E N T

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

2021:DHC:928

the Petitioner.”

2.

The respondent No.1 is University of Delhi, a Central

University regulated under the Delhi University Act, 1922 and

rules and regulations thereto. Respondent No. 2 is an aided

recognized College of respondent No.1. At the outset, I may note

that vide Order dated November 4, 2020, respondent No.3 /

Union of India was considered as a proforma party. It is also

noted, vide order dated November 26, 2020, respondent No.1

adopted the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 / College.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was

issued by the respondent No.2 / College for making appointment

to the two posts of Assistant Professor in Psychology /

Commerce on ad-hoc basis. The appointment in the Psychology

discipline was reserved for a SC candidate. The petitioner

applied against the same, i.e., Psychology discipline under the

reserved category. The petitioner, being found successful in the

selection process, was appointed as Assistant Professor

(Psychology) on ad-hoc basis with effect from August 05, 2019.

The said appointment was for a period of four months till

December 04, 2019. On her appointment, the petitioner was

2021:DHC:928

assigned duty roster and time table for delivering lectures on the

prescribed syllabus of the subject.

4. In December 2019, after the winter break, 17 other ad-hoc

Assistant Professors including the petitioner were not given

joining but were only directed to join on January 01, 2020. It is

her case that she was not paid salary for the month of December,

2019. She joined her duties as Assistant Professor (Psychology)

on January 01, 2020 and was teaching in the respondent No.2 /

College till April 28, 2020. However, due to the COVID-19

pandemic, the semester continued till June 12, 2020.

5. It is the case of the petitioner and as contended by her

counsel that as per the Notification dated June 30, 2020 issued by

the Govt. of India, no employee was to be removed during the

COVID-19 Pandemic. He submitted that on July 17, 2020, the

petitioner received an e-mail from the Teacher In-charge

mentioning the excess workload. On July 21, 2020, the petitioner

received time table of 18 classes per week and on July 27, 2021,

the respondent No.2 / College provided work to petitioner for

college website.

6. On August 08, 2020, she was also assigned OBE duties.

The next session resumed on August 10, 2020 and the Teacher

In-charge signed the application of the petitioner for rejoining the

respondent No.2 / College but unfortunately the Principal of

respondent No.2 / College denied the joining of the petitioner. It

is contended that on the intervention of the Delhi University

Teachers’ Association (‘DUTA’, for short), the petitioner was

orally informed that the joining of the petitioner shall be

2021:DHC:928

accepted. Despite such assurance, on August 11, 2020, Teacher

In-charge communicated to the petitioner that the Principal has

refused to assign classes to the petitioner even after orally

accepting the joining letter. Several meetings took place between

officials of the DUTA and the Principal regarding the rejoining of

the petitioner but the same was not approved by the Principal.

Rather, the respondent No.2 / College advertised the same post

without termin