Sandesh v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi

1. We have heard Ms. Meghna De, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner was working as Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife in the office of the MCD on contract. She petitioned the learned Tribunal, aggrieved by the fact that her services were terminated on 1 May 2017.

3. Before the learned Tribunal, the Counsel for the MCD pointed out that the termination of the petitioner’s services had been necessitated because 66 regular candidates were being recruited through the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) vide Office Order dated 27 April 2017. As such, it was submitted that the contractual employees were being disengaged.

4. The learned Tribunal further noted that, at the time of engagement of the petitioner as contractual employees, they had been clearly told that their services would not be reckoned for any purpose and they would not be entitled for regularisation and that their services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. Inter alia, for this reason as well, the learned Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner could not be granted relief she sought. Nonetheless, the learned Tribunal directed that the petitioner would be considered in preference to freshers in the event of her services being required in future.

5. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner moved this Court by means of WP (C) 14485/2023, which was dismissed by order dated 7 November 2023. This Court noted the fact that the petitioner was being terminated only because regular appointments were being made through the DSSSB.

6. Ms. Meghna De submits that the petitioner has been working on contract basis for several years, close on two decades and then it would be a travesty of justice if she was terminated at this stage. She also seeks liberty to move the Industrial Tribunal challenging her termination.

7. Neither of these requests can be acceded to, especially in a review proceeding.

8. No error apparent on the face of the record of the impugned order has being pointed out by Ms. Meghna De.

9. The parameters of review jurisdiction are limited and, within those limited parameters, no case for review is made out.

10. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J. ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. OCTOBER 4, 2024 Click here to check corrigendum, if any