Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mr Sachin Sharma And Others vs Directorate Of Training & Technical ... on 13 October, 2025
1
Item No. 9 (C-3) O.A No. 3288/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3288/2023 With
M.A No. 3792/2023, M.A No. 3793/2023,
and MA No. 1022/2024
Reserved on : 17.09.2025
Pronounced on : 13.10.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. MR. SACHIN SHARMA
AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O MR. SURAJ NARAYAN
R/O VPO BHAINSRU KALAN ROHTAK,
HARYANA-124501 POST-MMV COLLEGE- ITI
JAHANGIR PURI.
2. MR. NAVEEN KUMAR
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O MR. RAVI DUTT SHARMA
R/O 478/2 KESHAV NAGAR, HAPUR-245101.
POST-DMC
COLLEGE- ITI AKS.
3. MR. ZIYAUL HAQ
AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O MOHD. SALEEM
R/O VPO CHATELA TEHSIL KALPI,
DISTT JALAUN, UP-285203 POST-PULMBER
COLLEGE- ITI AKS.
4. MR. ASHWANI KUMAR YADAV
AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O MR. DAYARAM YADAV
R/O H.NO.C-238, PLOT NO.B-58, RAMA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110015 POST-MMC,
COLLEGE-ITI AKS.
5. MR. OM PRAKASH SINGH
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O MR. HARI SHANKAR SINGH
R/O K-446, GALI NO.13, SOM BAZAR, ROAD
RAJAPURI, NEW DELHI-110059
POST-MT&TW, COLLEGE-ITI MALVIYA NAGAR.
2 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023
Item 9 (C-3)
6. MR. JAY PRAKASH MAURYA
R/O VPO SOGAIN VIA SAIDRAJA
AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O MR. LATE RAMA MAURYA DISTT CHANDAULI,
UP-232110 POST-ELECTRONIC MECH.
COLLEGE-ITI MALVIYA NAGAR.
7. MR. AKHILESH KUMAR PANDEY
AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O MR. RAVEENDRA KUMAR PANDEY
R/O VPO SAIDEPUR HARIYA,
DISTT LAKHIMPUR, KHIRI UP-262728 POST-DMC,
COLLEGE-ITI MALVIYA NAGAR.
8. MS. MANISHA DEVI
AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS,
D/O MR. RAMPHAL
R/O VPO MADANPUR DISTT KURUKSHTERA 136135
POST-COPA, COLLEGE-ITI VIVEK VIHAR
9. MS. MANPREET KAUR
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS
D/O MR. JOGINDER SINGH
R/O 91-C, RED FLATS, PUNJABI BAGH,
NEW DELHI-110026 POST-FDT,
COLLEGE- MAYUR VIHAR.
10. MS. MANSI BANSAL
AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS,
D/O MR. VIJAY BANSAL
R/O T-36A, UG FLOOR, NEAR JAGRAN CHOWK,
UTTAM NAGAR WEST, NEW DELHI-110059.
POST-IT, COLLEGE-MAYUR VIHAR
11. MR. PARDEEP KUMAR
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O MR. SURAJBHAN
R/O H.NO.440, MUKHIJA COLONY, JATTAL ROAD,
PANIPAT, HARYANA-132103 POST- WELDER,
COLLEGE-ITI JAFFARPUR KALAN.
12. MS. PRAVESH KHARB
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS,
D/O Sh. VED SINGH
R/O VILLAGE MUNDHELA KALAN,
NEW DELHI-110073 POST-SEW. TECH.
COLLEGE-ITI TILAK NAGAR.
3 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023
Item 9 (C-3)
13. MR. KISHAN KUMAR SHARMA
AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O MR. LAX MAN PRASAD SHARMA
R/O VILLAGE + POST - KEELPUR,
DIST-ALIGARH-202141
POST-D.T.Ρ.Ο. COLLEGE-JIJABAI ITI FOR WOMEN SIRIFORT
14. MR. SHILPI KUMARI
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O MR. PREM NARAYAN THAKUR
R/O A-4, UPPER GROUND, SAI UPWAN SOCIETY,
YUSUF PUR CHAK SABERI, G.B. NAGAR UP-201009
POST-COPA COLLEGE-JIJABAI ITI FOR WOMEN SIRIFORT
15. MS. ANJU MANN
AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS,
D/O Sh. BALRAJ MANN
R/O H.NO.-156, GALI NO.-01, ASHRAM WALI GALI,
NEAR AXIS BANK, IDGAH ROAD
MODEL TOWN PANIPAT,
HARYANA-132103
POST-COPA COLLEGE-S.C.V.R. ITI DHEERPUR.
16. Ms. REKHA
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O SH. SUKHBEER SINGH,
R/O HOUSE NO. B-229, SHIV MANDIR WALI GALI,
NATHU PURA, P O BURARI,
DELHI-110084. POST-COMPUTER HARDWARE
NETWORKING MAINTENANCE COLLEGE-ITI DHEERPUR.
17. MR. AAKASH ARORA
AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O SH. AJAY ARORA
R/O H. NO.1/3022 RAMNAGER
LONI ROAD SHAHADARA, DELHI-110032.
POST-FOOD & BEVERAGE ASSISTANT
COLLEGE- ITI DHEERPUR.
18. MR. JAGDISH CHANDER
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O SH. SHYAM LAL
R/O B/54, VIKAS NAGAR, UTTAM NAGAR,
DELHI-110059. POST-MMV
COLLEGE- ITI PUSA ...PETITIONERS
(By Advocate : Mr. Puneet Rathi)
4 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023
Item 9 (C-3)
VERSUS
1. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
THROUGH IT'S CHIEF SECRETARY,
DELHI SECRETARIAT, I.P. ESTATE
NEW DELHI-110002.
2. DEPARTMENT OF TRAINING AND IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
THROUGH MUNI MAYA RAM MARG,
PITAMPURA, DELHI-110088. ....RESPONDENT S
(By Advocate : Mr. Amit Anand with Mr. Vineet Yadav, departmental
representative)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
M.A No. 3792/2023 :-
The present M.A filed by the applicants for joining together in a single OA stands allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
O.A No. 3288/2023 :-
The instant OA has been filed by Shri Sachin Sharma and 17 other similarly placed applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To quash and set aside the impugned Advertisement dated October 2023 (uploaded on the website of the Respondent No.2 on 12.10.2023); and
(ii) To continue with the services of the Applicants in the respective posts without any further interview;
(iii) To direct the Respondents not to replace the service of the Applicants by any other sources except by way of regular appointment and allowing the Applicants to serve the Respondent Department till the regular appointment on the posts.5 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023
Item 9 (C-3)
(iv) accord all consequential benefits thereafter;
(v) award cost of the proceedings;
(vi) pass any other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow cost in favour of the Applicant."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that they have been working as Craft Instructors on contract basis (to be paid on hourly basis) in various Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) under Department of Training and Technical Education (DTTE), GNCTD since 2019. On 20.07.2019 the respondents - DTTE issued an advertisement for engagement of Craft Instructors on contract basis for the period from 20.12.2019 to 31.07.2020 and a revised advertisement on 28.07.2019 amending some clauses of the advertisement pursuant to which the applicants were appointed. The respondents again issued another advertisement on 12.10.2023 on the same conditions thereby attempting to replace the applicants. Aggrieved, the applicants approached the department; however, the department insisted that they should compete as fresh candidates along with others. Thus, the applicants have been compelled to file the instant OA.
3. This matter was heard at the stage of admission hearing on 20.10.2023, and the following order was passed which inter alia stated as under :-
6 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023
Item 9 (C-3) "In the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the respondents shall not declare the result of 18 posts against which the present applicants in the OA had been engaged, without leave of this Tribunal. However, the respondents may declare the result for the remaining posts."
4. Subsequently, the counsel of the applicants has been constantly pressing that this case is squarely covered by two decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in :
(i) Kavita & Others vs. GNCTD & Others in OA No. 2302/2019 decided on 23.01.2020 and
(ii) Nisha & Others vs. GNCTD in OA No. 1339/2020 decided on 07.02.2023.
5. However, the counsel of the respondent has been opposing the arguments of the counsel of the applicants and during the course of hearing on 21.08.2024 had submitted that he would need some time to seek instructions.
6. On 17.09.2025, when this matter was heard, counsel of the applicants relied upon and handed across the Bar a catena of Judgments which are listed below :-
(i) State of Haryana & Others vs. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118];
(ii) State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [(2006) (4) SCC 1];
(iii) Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. vs. Director General of Police, Assam and Ors. [(2009) 6 SCC 611];
(iv) Kamlesh Kumar Vyas & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(MANU/SCOR/10082/2015];7 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023
Item 9 (C-3)
(v) Commissioner KVS vs. Anil Kumar Singh [2003 (10) SCC 284];
(vi) Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors. [2007 (13) SCC 292];
(vii) Talat Parvez Rohella and Ors. vs. Meenakshi Devi & Ors. [MANU/SCOR/48257/2022];
(viii) Central Welfare Board and Ors. vs. Anjali Bepari and Ors.[(1996) 10 SCC 133];
(ix) Abhbinav Chaudhary & Ors. vs. Delhi Technological University and Anr. [(2015) SCC OnLine Del 6780];
(x) Narinder Singh Ahuja vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare [(2014) SCC OnLine Del 2243];
(xi) Sunita Kumari & Ors. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [(2019) SCC OnLine Del 8892];
(xii) Malvinder Singh Mali vs. Punjab University [1999 SCC OnLine P&H 1181];
(xiii) Neeru Kalher & Ors. vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University [WP (C) No. 6014/2021];
(xiv) Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University vs. Neeru Kalher & Ors. [LPA No. 615/2023];
(xv) Surinder Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. [CWP No. 20514/2015];
(xvi) Pratikgiri Rameshgiri Goswami vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. [MANU/GJ/0576/2015]; (xvii) GNCTD & Ors. vs. Sonalika Mishra and Ors. [WP (C) No. 620/2015];
(xviii) Anil Lamba & Ors. vs. Government of NCT and Ors. [(2017) SCC OnLine Del 7382];
(xix) Dalip Kumar Jha vs. NDMC [WP (C) No. 16499- 16502/2004];
(xx) Santosh Kumar & Ors. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [MANU/CA/0154/2018 (xxi] Dev Raj Singh vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [OA No. 3972/2013;
(xxii) Sonalika Mishra & Ors. vs. GNCTD & Ors. [OA No. 2671/2014] 8 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023 Item 9 (C-3) (xxiii) Ashok Kumar & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [OA No. 2112/2020] (xxiv) Bhagyashree vs. Employee State Insurance Corporation and Ors. [OA No. 698/2020] (xxv) Kumari Shrilekha Vodyarthi & Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [AIR 1991 SC 537];
(xxvi) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Ors. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Ors. [AIR 1986 SC 1571];
(xi) Olga Tellis & Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. [(1859) 3 SCC 545];
7. He particularly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Manish Gupta & Others vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Others. The excerpts of which are as under :-
"9. Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the Division Bench of the High Court has erred In Interfering with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that, as a matter of fact, the Appellants were duly qualified and were selected in accordance with due selection process and were required to undergo the selection process in every Academic Year. He submits that the modus operandi of the Government Colleges was to engage the services of the Appellants at the beginning of the Academic Session and to discontinue them at the end of the Academic Session; and again to Issue fresh advertisements for the next Academic Session. In response to the same, the candidates were again required to follow the selection process to get appointed. It is therefore submitted that though there was sufficient workload for regular posts, the Appellants were deprived of regular employment. It is submitted that, In any case, the Appellants had not sought for regularization. The relief claimed was only for continuation of their services till duly selected candidates were appointed. He therefore submits that the Impugned judgment and order delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court deserves to be set aside.
10. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG, on the contrary, would submit that the Appellants were appointed in accordance with the said Scheme. It is submitted that under the said Scheme, the Government Colleges were required to run various courses on a self-financing basis. The expenditure 9 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023 Item 9 (C-3) for the same was to be meted out from the tuition fees, received from the students. He submits that the appointments of Appellants were neither ad hoc nor temporary. It is submitted that their services were as guest lecturers and were on contractual basis for 11 months.
11. Shri Nataraj further submits that the requirement of the guest lecturers was from year to year on the basis of the number of students available for particular course(s). He further submits that the said Scheme Itself provided for appointment of lecturers on a guest faculty basis and as such, since the Appellants had chosen not to challenge the said Scheme, the Division Bench had rightly allowed the writ appeals and dismissed the writ petitions.
12. A perusal of the advertisement dated 24th June, 2016 Issued by the Principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls Post Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is at Annexure P-2 of the Appeal Paper Book and the advertisement dated 2nd July, 2016 Issued by the Principal, SMS Government Model Science College, Gwallor, M.P., which is at Annexure P-3 of the Appeal Paper Book, would show that the appointments were to be made after the candidates had gone through due selection procedure. Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously urged that the appointments of the Appellants were as guest lecturers and not as ad hoc employees, from the nature of the advertisements, It could clearly be seen that the Appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis. It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rattan Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
MANU/SC/0354/1985: (1985) 4 SCC 43 and on the order of this Court In the case of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. MANU/SCOR/00045/2003: (2007) 13 SCC 292.
13. In that view of the matter, we do not find that an error was committed by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court by directing the writ Petitioners to continue to work on their respective posts till regular selections are made. We, however, find that the direction Issued by the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the writ Petitioners would be entitled to get the salary in accordance with the UGC circular is not sustainable. The advertisements themselves clearly provided that the selected candidates would be paid the honorarium to be determined by the said Committee."10 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023
Item 9 (C-3)
8. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents relied upon and handed across the Bar the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in K. Premabai vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others in WP/5621/2019 decided on 21.09.2022 which inter alia states as follows :-
"6. In Union of India & Ors. v. A.S. Pillai & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 448, this Court dealt with the issue of regularisation of part-time employees and the court refused the relief on the ground that part-timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere and they are not restrained from working elsewhere when they are not working for the authority/employer. Being the part-time employees, they are not subject to service rules or other regulations which govern and control the regularly appointed staff of the department. Therefore, the question of giving them equal pay for equal work or considering their case for regularisation would not arise.
7. This Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193, has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under:
"8(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption unless the or permanent continuance, employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right 11 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023 Item 9 (C-3) to be absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious employment". Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-
wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme a scheme is formulated for providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees.
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute." (Emphasis added) The counsel of the respondents on instructions further stated that there are vacancies of Crafts Instructors in various ITIs where the applicants can be adjusted. Also the academic session in ITIs has started on 1st September, 2025.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the pleadings and documents on record and perused the Judgments and Decisions of Coordinate Bench of CAT; Hon'ble High Court and Apex Court. We are of the considered opinion 12 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023 Item 9 (C-3) that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in K. Premabai vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others (Supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. We have observed that though the applicants in this case are Craft Instructors on contract basis who are paid on hourly basis but are actually engaged for 7 to 9 hours in a day. Thus, they are not part time but full time employees who spend the whole day in the ITIs giving instructions and imparting teaching. Also we have observed that this OA is squarely covered by the decisions of Coordinate Bench of CAT in :
(i) Kavita & Others vs. GNCTD & Others in OA No. 2302/2019 decided on 23.01.2020 and
(ii) Nisha & Others vs. GNCTD in OA No. 1339/2020 decided on 07.02.2023.
The relevant extracts from the decision in Kavita in OA No. 2302/2019 decided on 23.01.2020 are as follows :-
"9. The counsel for the applicants, in reply, vehemently and strenuously submitted that though the applicants were engaged on part time basis and on hourly basis and they have been paid only Rs.30,000/- per month at the maximum as per the above extracted appointment letters, but actually they were engaged every day almost 7 to 9 hours as per the records maintained by the respective ITIS/BTC/IBBS in Biometric attendance sheet and she further submitted that as per the offer of engagement letters it is clearly stated that the original documents of the applicants kept by the respondents until the completion of session by way of security of tools, equipments and machinery issued to them as per conditions 6 of their appointment letter and they were further under the condition that they shall not engage themselves during the relevant academic session in any other ITI/BTC etc as per para 11 of the said engagement and they are not entitled to any benefit of Provident Fund, Pension, Gratuity, Medical Attendance & treatment, Govt. Residential Accommodation 13 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023 Item 9 (C-3) or H.R.A. in lieu thereof or any other benefits and concessions admissible to Govt. servants.
14. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that though the applicants were engaged as per the offer of appointment letters under the alleged scheme and policy referred to above, on part time hourly basis and though the respondents have submitted that the applicants can work in the remaining time after 32 hours per week anywhere else, but however, in view of the monthly biometric attendance sheet shown to us, it is clear that the applicants are actually working regularly for 7 to 9 hours a day and moreover as per paras 6 & 11 of the terms and condition of offer of appointment extracted above, their original certificates were kept with the respondents as such practically they are not allowed to work for any other employer, we are of the view that engagements of the applicants are nothing but a new device of engagement to deprive the applicants the status of contract engagement so as to deny them the benefit of even continuity of engagement, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases right from 1992 in the above said Piara Singh's case and in Uma Devi's case (supra) which has been emphatically stated in the above extracted portion of the judgment in Sheo Narain case (supra), until regular appointments are made to the said posts and, therefore, the action of the respondents including the above extracted scheme and policy are against the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases and also against the principles underlying Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India as stated in the above said case of Sheo Narain and are in contravention of the duty enjoined on the respondent- state under Article 37 read with Article 39 (d) and (e) of the Constitution of India and also in view of the experience gained by the applicants for having worked with the respondents from the academic year 2017-2018, the respondents are bound by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and extracted above to continue the applicants until the respondents make regular appointments as per Recruitment Rules.
15. Accordingly the OA is partly allowed with a direction to the respondents to continue the engagement of applicants in the posts kept vacant in view of the interim order dated 22.11.2019 until the making of regular appointments as per Recruitment Rules. No order as to costs."
10. In the light of the above, we see no reason to deviate from the above decision. Also we have noted that the counsel of the 14 C.P. No. 738/2024 in O.A No. 3288/2023 Item 9 (C-3) respondent had stated on instructions that there are vacancies available for the Craft Instructors in the ITTs and that the applicants can be adjusted against the same. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned Advertisement dated October 2023 and direct the respondents to consider continuing the applicants in the respective posts without any further interview and not to replace them by any fresh recruits given the well settled principle in Administrative Law and Service Jurisprudence that "one set of contractual employee cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees." This exercise should be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. The above OA is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. M.As if any are also disposed of accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/