Ajay Gupta v. North Central Zone Cultural Centre & Ors.

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

1. The appellant has suffered a dismissal of the writ petition filed by him on the ground that there is a suppression of relevant facts. 2009:DHC:4697-DB

2. The appellant averred in the writ petition that vide order dated 07.11.1992, he was appointed as a Documentation Assistant on contract basis for a year, which appointment was extended on yearly basis till 11.05.1998. It was further averred that vide an order dated 19.05.1998 he was deployed as a Documentation Assistant for a period of one year and on 25.05.1999, the appointment was continued for three months.

3. Alleging discrimination in the form of services of other contractual employees being regularized and his claim for regularization being ignored, a writ petition was filed praying that a mandamus be issued to the respondents that services of the appellant be regularized as a Documentation Assistant.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed, it was disclosed to the Court, that appellant’s appointment as a Documentation Assistant on yearly basis, as per the contract, came to an end on 11.05.1998 and that vide the order dated 19.05.1998, with effect from 12.05.1998, the appellant was employed as a Cultural Consultant and vide order dated 25.05.1999, the contractual appointment was continued for three months. It was stated that having ceased to work as a Documentation Assistant on 11.05.1998, the appellant could not claim a right to permanent employment in the said post of Documentation Assistant.

5. The learned Single Judge has found that the appellant has suppressed the relevant fact of being disengaged in service as a Documentation Assistant and re-engaged in service under the respondents as a Cultural Consultant. The result is the dismissal of the writ petition without adjudication of the claim on merits.

6. We note that in terms of the interim orders passed in the instant appeal, the appellant has continued to service under the respondents.

7. From a perusal of the impugned order, we note that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis that the posts of Documentation Assistant and Cultural Consultants are different posts.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the fact that for the same post, sometimes the employer would refer to the post as that of a Documentation Assistant and sometime as that of a Cultural Consultant.

9. Various communications addressed to the appellant post filing of the instant appeal have been shown to us, in which we find that the respondents are referring to the appellant as a Documentation Assistant.

10. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has erred, without deciding whether the post of a Documentation Assistant is the same as that of a Cultural Consultant, to proceed on the basis that the two posts are different posts.

11. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2001 and restore the writ petition, filed by the appellant, to be adjudicated on merits.

12. We clarify that we have not rendered any final opinion on the issue whether the post of a Documentation Assistant is the same as that of a Cultural Consultant. The learned Single Judge would be free to re-decide the said issue.

13. Needless to state, if it is held that the posts of a Documentation Assistant and a Cultural Consultant are mere nomenclatures, but the posts are the same with reference to the duties performed, the learned Single Judge would adjudicate the writ petition on merits.