ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
MALAPPURAM CENTRE, KERALA
A PROJECT REPORT ON
CASE COMMENTARY
CASE : UNIVERSITY OF DELHI V. DELHI UNIVERSITY CONTRACT
EMPLOYEES UNION & OTHERS
DATE OF SUBMISSION : 23 OCTOBER, 2023
SUBMITTED TO
DR. AZMAT ALI
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, AMUMC
SUBMITTED BY
MD FURKAN
22LLBWK266
GN2632
CASE COMMENT
BENCH : HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT & K.M JOSEPH
CITATION : 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 256
CASE TITLE : UNIVERSITY OF DELHI V. DELHI UNIVERSITY CONTRACT
EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS
CASE NUMBER : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1007,1008 OF 2021
DECIDED : 25 MARCH 2021
APPELLANT : UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
RESPONDENT : DELHI UNIVERSITY CONTRACT EMPLOYEES UNION
AND OTHERS
SYNOPSIS
1. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2. ARGUMENT FROM THE PETITIONER
3. ARGUMENT FROM THE RESPONDENT
4. FINDING OF THE COURT ( OBSERVATION )
5. ANALOGY USED BY THE COURT
6. VERDICT
7. FAIR CRITICISM
1. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.1 University of Delhi is appellant. Delhi University contract employees union and others
are the respondent.
1.2 By Communication dated 31.08.1999 the University Grants commission imposed a
ban on filling up of non-teaching posts in all institutes/universities and the affiliated
colleges.
1.3 On 12.01.2011 the UGC sanctioned and allowed the University to fill up 255 posts of
Junior Assistants while suggesting changes in Recruitment Rules of University.
1.4 Accordingly, Recruitment Rules ( Non-Teaching Employees ) 2008 were amended by
the University and an advertisement was published on 16.11.2013 in the leading
newspapers inviting applications for 255 posts of Junior Assistants in the University.
1.5 However, during the period from 2003 to 2013 various appointments were made by
the University on contract basis as a result of which about 300 Junior Assistants are
presently in the employment of the University on contract basis, most of whom are
members of the Union.
1.6 In the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.11.2013, the
Junior Assistants employed on contractual basis, also participated.
1.7 All contractual appointees were granted age relaxation.
1.8 However, only 120 regular appointments could be made by the University out of
which 10 were contractual appointees and members of the Union.
2. ARGUMENT FROM THE PETITIONER
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to argue that respondent-University is
appointing persons on contractual basis pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated
30.5.2013 and which should not be done in view of the ratio of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra).
2.2 This argument is misconceived for various reasons. Firstly, Umadevi's case (supra)
does not state that State is not bound to make permanent appointment.
2.3 In fact, Umadevi (supra) allows State and instrumentalities of State as per exigency of
situation also to make contractual/casual/temporary appointments.
2.4 In any case, this argument is also rejected for the reason that learned senior counsel
on instruction states that posts advertised in terms of the advertisement dated 30.5.2013
in fact merge with the advertisement now issued on 6.11.2013 by requiring appointments
to such posts only to be made as regular appointments and in permanent employment.
2.5 In the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.11.2013, the
Junior Assistants employed on contractual basis, also participated.
2.6 All contractual appointees were granted age relaxation. However, only 120 regular
appointments could be made by the University out of which 10 were contractual
appointees and members of the Union.
2.7 The Union, being aggrieved by the dismissal of its Writ Petition, filed LPA No.
989/2013 before the Division Bench of the High Court. During the pendency of said
Appeal, factual details pertaining to the members of the Union were placed on record,
which show that the earliest contract employees were appointed in the year 2003 while
the last appointees were of the year 2013.
3. ARGUMENT FROM THE RESPONDENT
3.1 The Union, being aggrieved by the dismissal of its Writ Petition, filed LPA No.
989/2013 before the Division Bench of the High Court. During the pendency of said
Appeal, factual details pertaining to the members of the Union were placed on record,
which show that the earliest contract employees were appointed in the year 2003 while
the last appointees were of the year 2013.
3.2 But, as of now, most of them have completed more than 10 years of service on
contract basis.
3.3 Though benefit of regularization cannot be granted, a window of opportunity must be
given to them to compete with available talent through public advertisement.
3.4 A separate and exclusive test meant only for contract employees will not be an
answer as that would confine zone of consideration to contract employees themselves –
Modality suggested by University, on other hand, will give them adequate chance and
benefit to appear in ensuing selection – Benefit of age relaxation as contemplated in
affidavit without any qualification must be extended to all contract employees.
3.5 Those employees who were engaged in year 2011 be given benefit of 10 marks in
ensuing selection process while for every additional year that a employee had put in,
benefit of one more mark subject to ceiling of 8 additional marks be given.
3.6 If a employee was engaged for first time in year 2010, he shall be entitled to benefit
of 11 marks, while one engaged since 2003 shall be given 18 marks, as against appointee
of 2011 who will have advantage of only 10 marks – Contract appointees of 2012 and
2013 will have advantage of 9 and 8 marks respectively.
3.7 Public Notice inviting applications from candidates shall specifically state that
advantage in terms of order passed by this Court would be conferred upon contract
employees so that other candidates are put to adequate notice.
3.8 All contract employees shall be entitled to offer their candidature for ensuing selection
in next four weeks and in order to give them sufficient time to prepare, test shall be
undertaken only after three months of receipt of applications from candidates.
4. FINDING OF THE COURT
4.1 The decision of the University of Delhi to grant one time age exemption to all contract
labour who may have served for over a year on such basis for participating in the
selection in effect is in the nature of the Scheme postulated by the Supreme Court in Para
53 of Umadevi. It cannot be denied that such opportunity to participate in the selection
process has to be meaningful.
4.2 In view of the age relaxation given by the University of Delhi, an opportunity to
undergo the selection process was made available to all contract employees who had
worked for one year or more on contract. As a result of such opportunity, the contract
workers were rendered entitled to be tested on a realistic and fair scale and benchmark.
There is substance in the grievance of the contractual employees that to test them on the
same standards as new applicants is to deprive them of a fair and meaningful opportunity
to participate in the selection process.
4.3 The Delhi University admits that the contract employees who applied under the last
recruitment drive i.e. 6th November, 2013 possessed the requisite qualifications as per
the recruitment rules of 2008. Regular vacant posts were available when they were
appointed. Therefore, so far as all those who applied are concerned, their qualifications
stand verified. Furthermore, their original appointments could also, at the worst, be
termed irregular and not illegal.
4.4 There is substance in the grievance of the appellants that pursuant to the notification
dated 6th November, 2013, they have not been subjected to a test that is fair and
appropriate for them. The respondent-University ought to have designed an appropriate
mechanism for testing the appellants having regard to the date when they would have
acquired their qualifications. Beside the appointment drive conducted by the respondent-
University, they have regular post available for making appointments pursuant to a test
appropriately designed for the appellants and other persons based like them.
4.5 The appellants and others like them have served the organisation for long years, and,
it is evident that even if their having acquired academic qualifications much before the
new applicants, the deficiency, if any, is made good by the valuable experience acquired
by them by virtue of the years of service. The learned Single Judge has fallen into error in
treating the writ petition as one seeking a relief of regularisation.
4.6 The respondents were unable to fill up the vacancies pursuant to the process initiated
by the notification dated 6th November, 2013 which are still available.
4.7 In view of the passage of time, it would be unfair to the appellants as well as the
respondents to remand the matter for consideration of the above. This court is adequately
empowered to mould the relief to ensure complete justice to the parties.
5. ANALOGY USED BY THE COURT
5.1 Following analogies used by the Hon’ble Court for arriving at the decision.
a. Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Relied [Para 3]
b. Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 1 – Referred [Para 6]
c. Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2013) 14 SCC 65 – Referred [Para 6]
d. State of Mysore vs. S.V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071 – Referred [Para 7]
e. R.N. Nanjundappa vs. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 – Referred [Para 7]
5.2 The judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) specifically directs that Courts should
desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of
persons who are only ad-hoc/contractual/casual employees and who have not secured
regular appointments as per procedure established. The Supreme Court has further
observed that passing of orders preventing regular recruitment tends to defeat the very
constitutional scheme of public employment and that powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India therefore cannot be exercised for perpetuating illegalities,
irregularities or improprieties or for scuttling the whole scheme of public employment.
5.3 The decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Umadevi (supra) was
pronounced on 10.04.2006 by which time, the earliest contract employees had put in only
3-4 years of service and most of the contract employees were engaged after the decision
in Umadevi (supra).
6. VERDICT
6.1 In view thereof, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the University of Delhi to
design and hold an appropriate test for selection in terms of the notification dated 6th
November, 2013 having regard to the fact that the persons working on contract basis
covered under the notification dated 6th November, 2013 had obtained their essential
qualifications much before the fresh applicants; that they have rendered satisfactory
service and bring with them the benefit of the knowledge acquired by experience gained
while working on contract basis with the Delhi University.
6.2 It is also clarified that the same persons who shall be so tested would be those who
would be eligible pursuant to the advertisement dated 6th November, 2013.
7. FAIR CRITICISM
The contract employees in the present case cannot, therefore, claim the relief of
regularization in terms of paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi (supra). The rejection
of their petition by the single Judge of the High Court was quite correct and there was no
occasion for the Division Bench to interfere in the matter.
It is true that, as on the day when the judgment in Umadevi (supra) was delivered by this
Court, the contract employees had put in just about 3 to 4 years of service. But, as of
now, most of them have completed more than 10 years of service on contract basis.
Though the benefit of regularization cannot be granted, a window of opportunity must be
given to them to compete with the available talent through public advertisement. A
separate and exclusive test meant only for the contract employees will not be an answer
as that would confine the zone of consideration to contract employees themselves. The
modality suggested by the University, on the other hand, will give them adequate chance
and benefit to appear in the ensuing selection.
Lastly, it must be observed that according to Mr. Santosh Kumar, there are at present 300
Junior Assistants working on contract basis in the University while the number of posts
advertised are only 236. Even if it be assumed that all these 236 posts are secured by the
contract employees, that would still leave 64 of the contract employees as unsuccessful.
It may therefore possibly be said that as against the required posts of 236, the University
had engaged contract employees in excess of the required number or that there may be
further advertisement to fill up the remaining posts. We need not go into this issue and we
rest content by saying that in any selections in future, one more chance and advantage in
terms of this order shall be given to such unsuccessful contract employees.
