Amar Jeet & Others vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicants were engaged as Craftsmen Instructors in the Education Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi on contractual basis, at various points of time. It is stated that they have put in more than 10 years of service and when attempts were made for regular recruitment, they have approached this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court and orders were passed at various stages. It is also the case of the applicants that this Tribunal directed the respondents to frame the policy for regularization, and similar direction was also issued by the Hon'ble High Court, but the respondents did not frame any policy in that behalf. It is stated that respondents passed an order dated 11.08.2020 mentioning that a policy has already been framed on 11.06.2019 and nothing more needs to be done.

The applicants contend that the policy framed on 11.06.2019 was only to the extent of granting relaxation of age limit, enabling the employees to participate in the selection process and it cannot be treated as a policy for regularization.

The respondents passed separate orders on 29.07.2020, 30.07.2020 and 31.07.2020 terminating the contractual service of the applicants and similarly situated persons. In this O.A., the orders of termination as well as order dated 11.08.2020 are challenged.

The applicants contend that they were appointed, on being satisfied about their possessing requisite qualifications and they were also subjected to selection process. They contend that the mere fact that they were appointed on contractual basis, does not entitle the respondents to replace them indiscriminately. They further submit that despite specific directions issued by this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court to frame a policy for regularization, the respondents did not comply with the same and instead, they have dispensed with the services of the applicants.

We heard Mr. S. K. Malik, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. H.A. Khan, and Mr.Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents at the stage of admission, through video conferencing.

A perusal of the OA, or for that matter, the order dated 11.08.2020, discloses the amount of litigation that has ensued at the instance of the applicants, over the past several years. The applicants were engaged on contractual basis, as Craft Instructors. It may be true that they have put in more than 10 years of service and were making efforts to get their services regularized. The fact, however, remains that the only direction issued by the Tribunal or the Hon'ble High Court was that the policy be framed by the respondents in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1.

In Umadevi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its displeasure as regards the appointment of employees on contractual basis, against the regular vacancies and continuing them for years together on contractual basis It was also directed that as a 'one time measure' the Government and its Agencies shall take steps for regularization of contractual employees working against regular vacancies by granting age relaxation etc. The effort was to subject such candidates also to regular process of selection, by removing the impediments of over age.

The plea of the applicants is that the respondents have not framed any policy earlier, as directed by this Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court. However, on 11.06.2019 the Lieutenant Governor framed a policy providing for relaxation of age limits for the contractual employees, like the applicants, to enable them to participate in the selection process. It is not known as to whether the applicants have availed that facility or not. Once the policy decision was taken to grant age relaxation, enabling the contractual employees to participate in the selection process, there exists a total compliance of the mandate given in Umadevi's case (supra) and the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court and this Tribunal. The order dated 11.08.2020 is the one, that recapitulated the various developments, which have taken place and informed that policy decision taken on 11.062019 is a total compliance. We do not find any defect or illegality in this regard.

The appointment of the applicants was on contractual basis for a limited period and that was being extended from time to time. The respondents have chosen to discontinue the services of the applicants through separate orders dated 29.07.2020 and 30.07.2020 and 31.07.2020. The applicants can feel aggrieved, if only they are replaced by another set of contractual employees. Even now, we make it clear that the applicants cannot be replaced with another set of contractual employees.

We, therefore, dismiss the O.A. declining to interfere with the impugned termination order. We, however, make it clear that in case the respondents intend to engage any contractual employees for the posts, that were held by the applicants, they shall prefer the applicants. There shall be no order as to costs.