Delhi High Court - Orders
Ms Shikha vs Delhi Technological University ... on 25 August, 2021
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11223/2020, CM Nos. 35011/2020, 27115/2021
MS SHIKHA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A. K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY THROUGH: ITS VICE
CHANCELLOR
..... Respondent
Through: Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD
(services) with Mrs.Tania Ahlawat,
Mr.N. K. Singh and Ms.Palak
Rohmetra, Advs. for DTU
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
ORDER
% 25.08.2021 This matter is being heard through video-conferencing.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"A. Issue Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent to continue the Petitioner as Assistant Professor in Electronics and Communication Engineering on contract basis like other Assistant Professors mentioned in Office Orders dated 10.07.2020 and 23.07.2020. (Annexure P-1 & P-2) B. Issue further Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reassess the candidature of the petitioner in regular selection for the post of Assistant Professor (E.C.E.) in which she participated along with freshers, by giving her the benefit of observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 56 of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi.
C. Pass any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit."
2. Some of the facts as noted from the petition are; the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Electronics and Communication Engineering) on contract basis in the respondent - University. Her appointment continued on contract basis from time to time. On July 01, 2019, the respondent had invited applications for filling up 26 vacancies for the post of Assistant Professor (Electronics and Communication Engineering). Pending regular appointment, the contractual appointment of the petitioner was extended till June 14, 2020. Pursuant to the advertisement made by the respondent - University, the selection process was initiated. It transpired that the petitioner was not successful in the selection process. Suffice to state here that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Electronics and Communication Engineering) against an SC vacancy.
3. It is the submission of Mr. A. K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, that no doubt that the petitioner was unsuccessful and was not appointed on regular basis but as per the stand of the respondent there are four vacancies of OBC and also one un-reserved post available in the stream of Electronics and Communication and though the petitioner does not belong to the OBC or claiming the benefit as a PWD candidate but still such time the respondent fill up the said posts / vacancies on regular basis, the petitioner's contractual appointment need to be continued. In this regard, he highlights the fact that even after the petitioner was not found successful for regular appointment, her contractual appointment was continued till January 14, 2021. It is the submission of Mr.Bhardwaj that as an appointment on contract basis does not consume the reserved post belonging to OBC, the petitioner can be appointed. He states that the petitioner undertakes to vacate the post on the availability of the regular candidate against the OBC post / vacancy. He also relies upon an Office Order dated August 06, 2021 issued by the respondent - University to contend that certain other persons have been granted contractual appointment till June 14, 2022.
4. On the other hand, Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel for respondent - University, has drawn my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the University to contend that the petitioner being unsuccessful in the selection process cannot be appointed on contract basis. She states that the vacancies of which a reference has been made by Mr.Bhardwaj to be filled by the OBC candidates, the respondent had earlier issued the advertisement and pursuant to the selection process the said posts could not be filled, as no candidate was successful. It has been decided to re-advertise the said posts. That apart, it is her submission that no doubt that the petitioner's contractual appointment was extended beyond the period of July 15, 2020 to January 14, 2021 but that was for the reason of non availability of sufficient Assistant Professors (Electronics and Communication Engineering) in the University. She states today there are around 31 Assistant Professors in Electronics and Communication Engineering available in the University who can meet the requirement of the University. In other words, there is no necessity to fill up the vacancies on contract basis.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the conceded case of the petitioner that she was unsuccessful in the selection process undertaken by the University to fill up the posts of Assistant Professor (Electronics and Communication Engineering) on regular basis. She has not challenged her non-selection in this petition. The only submission made by Mr.Bhardwaj is that the contractual engagement of the petitioner be continued till vacancies / posts are filled by the OBC candidates. Though the submission of Mr.Bhadwaj looks appealing but the submission of Ms.Ahlawat as there are 31 Assistant Professors in Electronics and Communication Engineering who are working in the University, no need is felt to appoint another Assistant Professor (Electronics and Communication Engineering) on contract basis, need to be accepted. It is the outlook of the University and the Court cannot substitute the opinion of the University with its own opinion. Suffice to state, the petitioner was a contractual appointee in the past and being not successful in the process of regular appointment, this Court cannot give any direction to the respondent- University to continue the contractual appointment of the petitioner till such time the regular candidates against the OBC vacancies / posts are appointed.
6. The writ petition is dismissed with no cost.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J AUGUST 25, 2021/bh