The Delhi High Court Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by a contractual employee of Jamia Milia University working as a data entry operator who had sought modification of an order of a single judge seeking regularisation of services and creation of a regular sanctioned post by Express News Service.
In May a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain had directed the vice-chancellor of the university to be present for the next hearing, if the appellant, who has already worked for 17 years in the university, is not adjusted in any of the ongoing projects in the varsity. The order was passed as the counsel representing the university failed to respond to the court’s April 1 order wherein the varsity was asked to inform how petitioner Aquil Ahmed can be retained on a contract basis either in the same project or under any other capacity.
The matter was heard by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad wherein the counsel for the university, Pritish Sabharwal, argued that the appellant is a contractual employee and cannot seek employment as a matter of right.
Also read: Making Company’s culture thrive for retention
“His appointment was not against any sanctioned post; he was appointed in 2003 for a period of three months on a contract basis wherein his contract was extended every three months till August 2020,” the counsel said. Sabharwal put forth the judgment of the Supreme Court in University of Delhi v Delhi University Contract Employees Union 2021 (March 25, 2021).
The appellant had challenged a single judge order of January 14. The court observed that the appellant was “appointed only on a temporary and contractual basis” for three months in 2003 wherein he was appointed in a project and not against any sanctioned post. He had approached the high court in a writ petition in 2018 praying that the university regularise the services of the petitioner as data entry operator.
The petition was disposed of by single judge on November 22, 2021 wherein he observed “as and when the post of data entry operator is filled in future on regular basis, the name of the petitioner shall be considered by giving age relaxation to the extent of number of years put in by the petitioner as a data entry operator, over and above upper age limit. The petitioner shall also be given the benefit of his past service put in by him as a data entry operator on contractual basis by awarding appropriate marks for the number of years put in by him, duly notifying the same in the advertisement.”
The appellant then filed a modification of this order wherein the single judge on January 14 disposed of the application. The court observed that, “the single judge had reiterated that appellant may be entitled to age relaxation as already granted in earlier order.”
The counsel for the appellant had submitted on August 28 that another contractual employee who was appointed along with the appellant in the year 2003 under the same project is still continuing till date, stating that the appellant “has been singled out and thrown out of employment”. The court had allowed the counsel for the appellant to file documents in support of his argument. In July, when the appellant had made the same submission, the court had directed the counsel for respondent to “explain as to why identically placed persons continued to remain in service and the appellant has been singled out.”
After the appellant had submitted that another contractual employee in a similarly placed position was retained by the university, the court was appraised that the other contractual employee has been discontinued and is no longer working for the university. The court observed, “….therefore the ground raised by the appellant under Article 14 and 21 no longer survives.”
Stay connected with us on social media platform for instant update click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
Add comment