LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-160

ABHINAV CHAUDHARY Vs. DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

Decided On January 20, 2015
Abhinav Chaudhary Appellant
V/S
DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C) No.3512/2014

(2.) The only grievance of the petitioners is that a contractual appointee cannot be replaced by any other contractual appointee. Petitioners claim that no doubt petitioners cannot seek regularization, however, it is argued that one contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee on more or less the same terms. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc. Vs. Piara Singh and Ors. etc. etc., 1992 4 SCC 118 which holds that one work charged/casual employee/daily worker cannot be replaced by any worker of same category. It is argued that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh and Ors. has been approved by the Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Ors., 2006 4 SCC 1. The judgment in the case of Piara Singh and Ors. is referred to in paras 23 to 25 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi . In para 26, the Constitution Bench in the case of Umadevi only disagreed with that direction of Piara Singh and Ors.'s case which requires regularization of ad hoc or temporary or casual employee. In para 25 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi para 46 of the Piara Singh and Ors.'s case is referred to and which para 46 states that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by any other ad hoc or temporary employee and such an employee can only be replaced by a regularly selected employee and which is to avoid any arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.

(3.) The ratio and spirit of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Piara Singh and Ors. and Umadevi has been applied and reiterated by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir and Anr. Vs. Director General of Police, Assam and Ors., 2009 6 SCC 611 and which states that a person who is employed under the scheme has to continue in the employment till the continuation of the scheme and such a person's services cannot come to an end/ terminated before the expiry of the scheme except of course on disciplinary grounds or unsatisfactory services or medical grounds or attaining the normal age of retirement. Paras 17 and 18 of the judgment in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir and Anr. are relevant and the same read as under:-