AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)
The applicant is aggrieved by the communication dated 04.05.2026, whereby she was informed that, owing to the non-requirement of her services, she would be relieved from the office of Respondent No. 1 upon expiry of her contractual period on 05.05.2026.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have replaced her with another contractual employee and, as such, the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.
Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel appearing on advance notice, submits that the aforesaid submission of the applicant is incorrect, as no other person has been appointed in her place.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. It is noticed that the contractual services of the applicant have not been continued beyond the stipulated period of her contract, the reason assigned by the respondents being the non-requirement of her services. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to suggest that the applicant has been replaced by another contractual employee. How the respondents run their office is purely an administrative decision, and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same in the exercise of judicial review.
In view of the above, finding the O.A. bereft of merit, the same is dismissed.
After the order was dictated, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have issued a fresh advertisement for a post at Delhi in connection with a separate project. He submits that the applicant would be willing to work in the said project if given an opportunity.
In view of the request made, the applicant is at liberty to apply in response to the aforesaid advertisement, and it would be open to the respondents to consider her application on its own merits and in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions.