LAWS(DLH)-2016-11-11

KUMAR MAYANK Vs. DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ANR

Decided On November 10, 2016
Kumar Mayank Appellant
V/S
Delhi Technological University And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners who are working as Assistant Professors with the respondent no.1 as contractual appointees. Petitioner seeks their regularization of their services. The prayers made in the petitions are identical and for the purpose of convenience the relevant prayer clauses of WP(C) No. 10368/2016 are reproduced below:

(2.) It is now over 10 years since the of passing of the judgment by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others 2006 (4) SCC 1 and which judgment effectively puts to an end the ,,industry created of temporary appointments and thereafter regularization of such temporary employees. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear in Umadevi's case (supra) that before appointing of persons on a regular/permanent basis there have to exist recruitment rules or specific eligibility criteria laid down for the appointments, there must be sanctioned posts, there must be vacancies in the sanctioned posts, and finally there must be issued advertisements for filling the posts; not as temporary or contractual posts but as permanent posts; so that there should be a level playing field of competition with respect to prospective appointees. Candidates can also be called from the lists of employment exchanges. Umadevi's case (supra) has laid down the following ratio:-

(3.) The aforesaid ratio of the Supreme Court can be culled out from the following paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra):-