Delhi High Court
Sh. Jeet Ram vs Oc, Cwg Delhi 2010 And Ors. on 14 March, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.1665/2011
% March 14, 2013
SH. JEET RAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. Mukherjee, Senior Advocate with
Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
OC, CWG DELHI 2010 AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rohit K. Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner for stopping the implementation of his transfer orders and for restraining the respondent No.1 from terminating the services of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 is the Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games Delhi, 2010.
2. The petitioner was admittedly appointed in terms of the appointment letter dated 17.2.2006. This appointment letter reads as under:-
WP(C) No.1665/2011 Page 1 of 5
"Dr. Lalit K Bhanot No.OC/CWG/Apt./06 Secretary General 17 February 2006 Mr. Jeet Ram, H.No.P-29, Sri Niwaspuri, New Delhi-110065 SUB: Appointment as Stenographer
With reference to your application, you are hereby appointed as Stenographer on adhoc basis in the Secretariat Organizing Committee, Commonwealth Games Delhi 2010 on the following terms and conditions:
1. Your appointment will take effect from the date you join duty.
2. You will be paid a consolidated lump sum salary of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month.
3. Your services will be governed by the rules & regulations of the Organizing Committee in force and as amended or formulated from time to time.
4. This appointment is subject to your being found medically fit and your character being verified as satisfactory.
5. You will not take up any other work or appointment elsewhere during the tenure of your service with the Organizing Committee, CWG Delhi 2010.
6. Further continuation of this appointment will be considered after review at the expiry of 6 months. The appointment is co-terminus with the holding of the Commonwealth Games during October 2010.
7. This appointment is terminable on one month notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof on either side.
8. In case, at any stage it is found that any particulars or information given by you in your application is false or incorrect, your appointment will be deemed as void and liable for termination without notice.
Please return the duplicate copy of this letter duly signed in acceptance of the terms and conditions.
(Dr. Lalit Bhanot) Secretary General"
3. Paras 6 and 7 of the appointment letter dated 17.2.2006 makes it more than clear that the petitioner's services were co-terminus WP(C) No.1665/2011 Page 2 of 5 with the holding of the commonwealth games during October, 2010 and the tenure of the services of the petitioner will not exceed the requirements for the commonwealth games which were to be held during October, 2010. In fact, services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated on one month notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof on either side and were to be periodically reviewed after every six months.
4. The aforesaid shows that the petitioner's appointment was only a temporary employment for the purpose of Commonwealth Games which were to be held in October, 2010 and which games are long gone. Today we are much later in the year 2013.
5. Counsel for the respondents has shown to me a list of 98 employees who were terminated alongwith the petitioner and petitioner is only one of the employees in the list. Counsel for the respondents argues, and in my opinion rightly, that the requirement of the employees for the commonwealth games has come to an end and wherever possible the employees are being terminated from their services in terms of their appointment letters and the petitioner is one such person in that category.
6. I may note that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held that except through a regular recruitment process, persons cannot be appointed either with the Central Government WP(C) No.1665/2011 Page 3 of 5 or with the State Government or with an instrumentality of the State. If I allow this writ petition it would amount to giving employment to the petitioner with the Central Government without following the regular recruitment process.
7. Counsel for the petitioner very vehemently argued that petitioner should be governed by the principle of "last come and first go", and which argument appeared attractive at the first blush, however the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was in fact terminated from the services on 24.2.2011 i.e before filing of this writ petition on 9.3.2011, and that too with 97 other employees. There is therefore no unfairness on the part of the respondent picking and choosing people. The issue therefore really boils down to one of granting of employment to the petitioner, and which cannot be done in view of ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra). Further, this Court cannot substitute itself for the Organizing Committee with respect to the aspect of finishing of the requirement of the employees and who would be no longer required for the work of Organizing Committee inasmuch as the Commonwealth Games have already been concluded in October, 2010. Counsel for the respondent rightly states that whatever limited staff is kept back, is for the purpose of limited spill-over works/aspects pending of the respondent No.1- Organizing Committee. WP(C) No.1665/2011 Page 4 of 5
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 14, 2013 Ne WP(C) No.1665/2011 Page 5 of 5