Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Mudgal vs Indian Institute Of Technology, Delhi on 28 July, 2014
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 28th July, 2014.
+ WP(C) No.6041/2001
MANOJ KUMAR MUDGAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi for Mr. A.K.
De, Advocate.
Versus
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Advocates.
AND
WP(C) No. 6042/2001
RAJEEV TOKAS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi for
Mr. A.K. De, Advocate.
Versus
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mr.Yeeshu Jain and
Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Both petitions impugn the separate but identical Office
Memorandums, both dated 10th July, 2001 of the respondent IIT, Delhi
WP(C) Nos.6041/2001 & 6042/2001 Page 1 of 8
discontinuing the services of each of the petitioners as Swimming Coach-
cum -Life Guard in the respondent IIT with immediate effect. The
petitions also seek the relief of reinstatement of each of the petitioners
with all consequential benefits and regularization of the services of the
petitioners on the post of Swimming Coach- cum- Life Guard with
consequential reliefs in that regard also.
2. Notice of the petitions was issued. Subsequently 'rule' was issued
in both the petitions on 16th July, 2003. The petitions came up for hearing
on 3rd July, 2014 when it was inquired from the counsel for the petitioners
as to how the petitioners were entitled to the relief claimed of
regularisation, particularly in view of the judgment in Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. The counsel for the petitioners
on that day sought adjournment to obtain instructions whether the
petitioners wanted to prosecute these petitions. Today the counsel for the
petitioners states that the petitioners want to press these petitions. The
counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent IIT have
been heard.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that; i) the respondent IIT, Delhi in
April, 1998 invited applications for the post of Swimming Coach-cum-
WP(C) Nos.6041/2001 & 6042/2001 Page 2 of 8
Life Guard; ii) the petitioner in WP(C) No.6041/2001 applied and
appeared before the Five Member Interview Board and was selected and
was issued an appointment letter dated 15th April, 1998; iii) sometime in
April, 2000 the respondent IIT, Delhi again invited applications for the
post of Swimming Coach-cum-Life Guard and the petitioner in WP(C)
No.6042/2001 applied and appeared before the Five Member Interview
Board and was selected and was issued an appointment letter dated 24th
April, 2000; iv) however the appointment letters issued to both the
petitioners stated the appointment was temporary and for a period of six
months with a consolidated salary of Rs.4500/- p.m. in appointment letter
dated 15th April, 1998 and of Rs.5000/- in the appointment letter dated
24th April, 2000 and the same was liable for termination on giving one
month's notice in writing on either side; v) that another appointment
letter was issued to the petitioner in WP(C) No.6041/2001 on 12th March,
1999 for a period of one year with effect from 1st April, 1999 with a
consolidated salary of Rs.5500/- and also with a condition that the same
was liable to be terminated by giving one month's notice on either side;
vi) yet another appointment letter dated 24th April, 2000 was issued to the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6041/2001 for a period of one year w.e.f. 1st
WP(C) Nos.6041/2001 & 6042/2001 Page 3 of 8
May, 2000 on a consolidated salary of Rs.6000/- terminable on one
month's notice on either side; vii) yet another appointment letter dated 9th
April, 2001 was issued to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6041/2001, this
time for a period of six months w.e.f. 16th April, 2001 on a consolidated
salary of Rs.6200/- terminable on 15 days' notice on either side was
issued; viii) similarly the petitioner in WP(C) No.6042/2001 was issued
another appointment letter dated 9th April, 2001 for a period of six
months w.e.f. 16th April, 2001 on a consolidated salary of Rs.5700/-
terminable on 15 days' notice on other side; ix) however the respondent
IIT vide Memorandums (supra) both dated 10th July, 2001 terminated the
services of both the petitioners because of adverse remarks received from
the office of Deputy Commissioner of Chief Licensing, Delhi.
4. The contention of the petitioners is:
a) that they had continuously worked with the respondent IIT
for a period of over three years excepting some artificial
breaks;
b) that the adverse remarks received from the office of Deputy
Commissioner of Chief Licensing, Delhi were not
communicated to the petitioners and no opportunity was
given to them to meet the same;
WP(C) Nos.6041/2001 & 6042/2001 Page 4 of 8
c) that the respondent has acted mechanically on the dictate of
another agency without application of mind;
d) that the termination dated 10th July, 2001 is stigmatic in
nature and without opportunity of hearing;
e) that a Committee constituted in relation to the death of one
Mr.Amit Agnihotri on 23rd August, 2000 in the swimming
pool had also not found the petitioners negligent of their
duties;
f) that the petitioners fulfilled all the requirements for
appointment to the post of Swimming Coach-cum- Life
Guard and the said post is of a permanent nature and the
petitioners having worked on the post for more than three
years ought to have been regularized.
5. Per contra, it is the version of the respondent IIT, Delhi, a) that for
the recreational and extracurricular activities including swimming, of the
students of the respondent IIT Delhi, contractual appointments are made;
b) that the service condition of the contract employees are totally
different from those of regular employees of the respondent IIT Delhi; c)
the contractual employees are not appointed to any sanctioned post; d)
that the contractual amounts are paid out of the fund/ fee received from
the students at the time of their admission; e) that from time to time
advertisements for such contractual posts inviting applications were
WP(C) Nos.6041/2001 & 6042/2001 Page 5 of 8
published and the petitioner in WP(C) No.6041/2001 repeatedly selected
and the petitioner in WP(C) No.6042/2001 was selected twice; f) that
the gaps in appointments are not artificial; g) because there is no
sanctioned post of Swimming Coach-cum-Life Guard, the question of
regularising the petitioners does not arise; in fact there is no
regularisation scheme in the respondent IIT, Delhi; h) reliance in this
regard is placed on judgment dated 15th March, 1994 of the Division
Bench of this Court in CWP No.2875/1993 titled Ved Prakash Gautam
Vs. IIT, Delhi and judgment dated 6th March, 1996 of the Division Bench
of this Court in CWP No.2273/1995 titled Ms. Amita Gulati Vs. Union
of India; i) that the respondent IIT, Delhi had received a letter dated 9th
July, 2001 from DCP Licensing with regard to the death of a student of
the respondent IIT due to drowning on 23rd August, 2000 in the
swimming pool, whereby respondent Institute was directed to appoint
responsible and trained life guards in place of existing life guards; j) that
the DCP Licensing is the authority which gives the licence to open and
run a swimming pool.
6. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners to the pleas aforesaid
in the counter affidavits of respondent IIT.
WP(C) Nos.6041/2001 & 6042/2001 Page 6 of 8
7. The counsel for the petitioners today, in response to the query
raised in the hearing on 3rd July, 2014, states that though it is not
controverted that in view of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) the relief of
regularisation cannot be granted but seeks that some compensation be
granted to the petitioners.
8. I am unable to agree. The letters of appointment of the petitioners
clearly show the appointment to be temporary and for the duration
mentioned in the letter and liable to be terminated by notice as aforesaid.
It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent IIT is in breach of
terms of the said contractual appointment for the petitioners to be entitled
to any damages for breach of contract. The petitioners were fully aware
that their appointments were temporary and contractual and rather in
acceptance of the same, from time to time in response to the
advertisements, applied and entered into fresh contracts with the
respondent.
9. The petitioners have also not shown anything on record that there
is any sanctioned / permanent post of a Swimming Coach-cum-Life
Guard in the respondent IIT.
WP(C) Nos.6041/2001 & 6042/2001 Page 7 of 8
10. The Division Bench of this Court in Amita Gulati (supra) also
pertaining to the respondent IIT held that temporary
engagement/appointment to a particular tenure post or on project post of
limited duration does not create any right for regular appointment and
that such engagement comes to an end by efflux of time or upon
completion of the project.
11. As far as the argument of the termination being stigmatic is
concerned, I have perused the Memorandums dated 10th July, 2001; the
same simply refers to the letter of the Deputy Commissioner of Chief
Licensing, Delhi and cannot be said to be stigmatic in any manner
whatsoever.
12. There is thus no merit in these petitions which are dismissed. No
costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JULY 28, 2014 'M' WP(C) Nos.6041/2001 & 6042/2001 Page 8 of 8