PUNEET GROVER Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of Order dated 1 8/09/1998. By the said Order the petitioner was conveyed by the Professor Incharge of Applied Psychology Department. University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'University for short') that as per the Orders received from the University contained in letter dated 27/08/1998 services of the petitioner were not required. Petitioners case is that she was appointed as typist with consolidated salary of Rs.700.00 per month on 23/09/1991 after qualifying the .test of typist and her selection was reflected in the merit list. However, her services were not regularised. She was upgraded in April 1995 and was paid consolidated salary, of Rs. 1000.00 per month upto 6/11/1996 in the South Campus of University. Thereafter, on 6/09/1996 she was transferred to North Campus and her salary was increased to Rs.3000.00 per month. She was again called back to South Campus w.e.f 8/05/1997 and worked there upto 22/11/1997. On 2 4/11/1997 she made representation for regularising her services on the basis of the Agreement dated 22/01/1990 entered into between the University and employees Union. However, inspite of her representation she was served with the impugned letter dated 18/09/1998 conveying her that her services were no longer required. It is also mentioned in the Writ Petition that petitioner continued to work upto October 1998 but was not paid salary from June 1998 onwards.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that petitioner was considered by the Selection Committee for regular appointment as typist in the year 1991 but was not selected. In 1995 again her case for appointment on compassionate ground was considered alongwith certain other candidates by the Selection Committee but this time also she did not get selected. As far as her initial appointment in the Department of Applied Psychology is concerned, it is stated that she was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs.700.00 per month and was paid from the budget head Psychological Services Cum Training Centre as there was no post in the Department. Her engagement in the said Centre came to an end in November 1996. She was not transferred to North Campus in November, 1996 as is alleged. Petitioner applied for being engaged on adhoc basis in the North Campus and gave specific undertaking to the following effect- That the present engagement is purely on casual basis and can be terminated at any time without any notice. Further I understand that there is no claim of re-engagement on any basis."

(3.) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Agreement dated 22/01/1990 does not cover the case of the petitioner as it is applicable to those who were in the employment in January 1990 and had worked for more than 730 days on that date. Petitioner was not in employment on that date as she was engaged much thereafter i.e. on 23rd September, 1991.