Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 347/2023 & CM 13400/2023
TARIKA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Pankaj Kumar, Mr Munawar Waseem, Mr Sandeep Kumar Singh, Mr Sidharth, Mr Shubhendu Saxena, Mr Atul Agnihotri, Advocates.
Through: Mr Shivendra Singh, Mr Bikram Dwivedi, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed alleging that the Respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 5397/2022 (‘writ petition’), whereby, the Respondent was directed to continue with the services of the Petitioner and it was directed that as and when the Respondent decides to fill the posts of Technical Assistants (‘TAs’) through open selection, the original petitioners were to be given the benefit of age relaxation and certain marks for completing each year of engagement with the Respondent.
1.1. It is stated in this petition that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated 21.12.2022, which while extending services of the other TAs did not include the name of the Petitioner herein.
1.2. It is further stated that the Petitioner’s representation dated 30.01.2023 made against the termination order dated 12.01.2023 has not been responded to till date.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that there were twenty-six (26) petitioners in the writ petition, however, the Respondent after the passing of this Court’s order dated 07.04.2022 have selectively not extended the appointment of some of the original petitioners, including the Petitioner herein.
2.1. He states that the Petitioner’s services have been discontinued vide termination order dated 12.01.2023, which is in violation of this Court’s order dated 07.04.2022.
2.2. He states that the non-renewal/termination of the services of the Petitioner is a wilful and deliberate act of disobedience.
3. In response, the learned counsel for the Respondent states that the services of the Petitioner have been discontinued as the regular incumbent has joined the University i.e., Ambedkar, Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University at Shakarpur Campus - 1, Delhi. In this regard, he relies upon the office order dated 12.01.2023, filed as Annexure P-6 to the present petition.
3.1. He states that the selection and recruitment process is not carried out by the Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University (‘DSEU’) but it is carried out by the parent department i.e., the Directorate of Training and Technical Education (‘DTTE’). He states that DTTE has not been made party to the present contempt petition.
3.2. He states that the continuation or extension of all the TAs, who were appointed on a contractual basis, was subject to the appointment of regular incumbent through direct recruitment.
3.3. He states that since the direct recruit has been appointed, the Petitioner’s contractual services have been rightly terminated. He states that this is also in conformity with the terms and conditions of the TAs appointed on a contractual basis.
3.4. He states that extension of time given to the TAs, appointed on contractual basis was expressly subject to the position being filed by direct recruitment. In this regard, he relies upon the contents of the office order dated 06.09.2022.
3.5. He states that there has been no breach of this Court’s order dated 07.04.2022 and the present petition is not maintainable.
4. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and is unable to accept the contentions of the Petitioner.
5. The original petitioners in the writ petition had sought a substantive relief to the effect that they are entitled to absorption and regularisation from the date of the filing of the petition. The Coordinate Bench after recording the facts of the case categorically opined that since the original petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis, upon their failure to apply for regular selection, the writ petition itself deserved to be dismissed. The Court further held that their claim for regularisation is not maintainable. The relevant paragraph of the judgment dated 07.04.2022 reads as under:
6. The Court, therefore, expressly declined the relief of absorption and regularisation as prayed for by the petitioners in the said writ petition. However, the Court after taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court in University of Delhi & Ors. v. Delhi University Contract Employees Union & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1007/2021 and 1008/2021 which was decided on 25.03.2021, issued a limited direction to the Respondents, therein to grant the benefit of age relaxation and each completed year of engagement by awarding certain marks, upto a ceiling limit so that the petitioners have some advantage over the outsiders. The direction which is contained in the operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
7. It is a matter of record that after the passing of the order dated 07.04.2022 in W.P.(C) 5397/2022, the Respondent vide office order dated 06.09.2022 had extended the services of the Petitioner herein until 06.12.2022; however, thereafter the services have not been continued. The relevant extract of the office order dated 06.09.2022 reads as under: “The services of the following staff members arc here by extended from 07th September, 2022 till 06th December 2022 or till the post is filled on regular basis through Direct Recruitment/Promotion/Deputation, whichever is earlier on the terms and conditions as it was/were for last contract with respective modification in terms of financial obligation(s):”
8. The contents of the office order dated 06.09.2022 are clear and unequivocal. The subsequent office order dated 12.01.2023 records that the regular incumbent has joined in place of the Petitioner herein and therefore, the services of the Petitioner have been discontinued. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the office orders dated 06.09.2022 and 12.01.2023, this Court finds merit in the submission of the Respondent that the discontinuation of the Petitioner’s services is not in violation of the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by this Court.
9. In substance, the Petitioner is only aggrieved by the termination of her contractual services. It was enquired from the learned counsel for the Respondent if a substantive writ petition has been filed challenging the termination. He fairly conceded that no writ petition has been filed challenging the discontinuation of the services.
10. In these facts and circumstances, this Court is unable to conclude that the action of the Respondent in discontinuing with the contractual services of the Petitioner, upon appointment of a regular incumbent through direct recruitment, is in wilful disobedience of the order dated 07.04.2022. Even otherwise contempt is a matter between the Court and the contemnor; and this Court is unable to conclude that there is any wilful, deliberate violation of the order dated 07.04.2022. This petition is accordingly dismissed and the pending applications, if any, are disposed of as infructuous.
11. It is clarified that in case, the Petitioner challenges the discontinuation/termination of her services before an appropriate authority, the present dismissal will not prejudice her case in as much as this Court has not examined the merits of the grounds of discontinuation. The examination in the present order is limited to the prism of contempt. No order as to costs.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 03, 2023