ANIL SINGH Vs. N D M C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions it has been prayed that appropriate writs, orders or directions may be issued to the Respondents for the regularization of the services of the Petitioners with all benefits as are being given to regular teachers and for prohibiting the Respondents from terminating their services. According to the Petitioners they have been engaged as Teachers by the NDMC on contractual tenures which has generally been extended on more than one occasion. The submission is that on the average these Teachers have served for about three years. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submit that the Petitioners have been engaged on contractual basis and it had been clarified that the engagement would not confer any right on them to claim regular appointment. On every occasion when the contract was renewed it had also been clarified that the extension would continue for the tenure or till posts are filled-up on regular basis, whichever is earlier. The Recruitment Rules prescribe that teachers who fall in category `C' must be selected by an independent body such as the DSSSB. All the Petitioners were engaged on the basis of "walk in interview" conducted by NDMC. Contrary to the submissions of the Petitioners the stance of the NDMC is that they have recently been engaged between the years 2001-2003. The earliest that any Petitioner has been engaged is of year 1999. During the pendency of the writ petitions on account of resettlement of jhugies outside NDMC area some schools had to be closed and/or merged with other schools, thereby rendering a number of teachers surplus. It is for this reason that the earlier requisition sent to the DSSSB has been withdrawn. Nine Balwari Teachers have been appointed by the DSSSB on regular basis. No vacancy to the post of TGT exists.

(2.) It appears that the NDMC has initiated steps to fill up the existing vacancies through the ageis of the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to whom it has sent its requisitions. Learned counsel for the Respondents' have argued that the power to effect appointments vests with the DSSSB but this is devoid of any merit. There is a distinction between selection and appointment; while NDMC may have no role to play in the former, the DSSSB has no say in the latter. These petitions have been filed in the wake of regular recruitment through the DSSSB and the consequent anxiety that services of the Petitioners shall be brought to an end. Learned counsel for the NDMC have firstly stated that it is not proposing to terminate the services of the Petitioners before the expiry of their respective contract periods. Secondly, they state that the NDMC also has no intention to replace the Petitioners by other teachers who would be engaged on a contractual basis. Thirdly, they assure the Court that consequent on recruitment by means of the regular selection process through the DSSSB, in the event of the Petitioners become surplus the policy of `last come first go' shall definitely be adhered to. Fourthly, learned counsel for the Respondents have also conceded that it would be legally impermissible for the Respondents to disqualify any of the Petitioners for regular selection on the ground of their having crossed the maximum age limit; if they choose to appear in the regular selection examinations, age relaxation shall be granted. These submissions have obviated any consideration of the impact of Article 14 on the facts of the case. A. Contract Employee claim for equal pay for equal work

(3.) This legal principle had been invoked by learned counsel for the Petitioners during arguments. The preponderant view enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that persons similarly placed as the Petitioners would not per se have the right to claim salaries equal to that of regular employees. The observations made in the thought provoking decision titled Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 879, although it may not be directly apposite to the present case for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not concerned with emoluments payable to contractual/ temporary/ ad-hoc employees, deserve to be thoroughly digested for its perspicuous legal content as well as its literary excellence: 'Equal pay for equal work' is not a mere demagogic slogan. It is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies, by the enforcement of constitutional rights. So the petitioner claims; so the petitioner asserts. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims, as a Directive Principle, the Constitutional goal of 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women'. Articles 14 and 19 guarantee respectively the fundamental rights to equality before the law and equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment and Art. 32 provides the remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental rights. So the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 and has asked us to direct the respondents to give him his due, the same as they have given others like him. True, he is the merest microbe in the mightly organism of the State, a little clog in a giant wheel. But, the glory of our Constitution is that it enables him to directly approach the highest Court in the land for redress. It is a matter of no little pride and satisfaction to us that he has done so. Hitherto the equality clauses of the Constitution, as other articles of the Constitution guaranteeing fundamental and other rights, were most often invoked by the privileged classes for their protection and advancement and for a 'fair and satisfactory' distribution of the buttered loaves amongst themselves. Now, thanks to the rising social and political consciousness and the expectations roused as a consequence, and the forward looking posture of this Court the underprivileged also are clamoring for their rights and are seeking the intervention of the Court with touching faith and confidence in the Court. The Judges of the Court have a duty to redeem their constitutional oath and do justice no less to the pavement dweller than to the guest of the five star hotel.