DINESH KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second round of litigation by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17th October, 2006 passed by the respondents wherein the petitioner has not found to be suitable for the post of Caretaker of the respondent/college, and accordingly, his termination order was passed. It was also observed in the impugned order that though the aforesaid termination did not tantamount retrenchment yet without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents they were remitting a cheque for a sum of Rs. 11,731/ - being the retrenchment compensation.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Caretaker on 3rd August, 2004 in pursuance to advertisement dated 26th April, 2004 by the respondent/college in pursuance to a due selection process. Although the petitioner is claiming that he had been working with the respondent/college as Caretaker on an ad hoc basis from 1998, his appointment was made after granting the petitioner certain relaxation with regard to acquiring his basic eligibility qualifications. The petitioner has filed the first round of litigation bearing No. 153/2005 claiming that his services be regularized although he was placed by the respondents on probation. This culminated into a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 22nd September, 2006 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that the petitioner shall be treated to have continued on probation and the governing body of the respondent/college was to take a conscious decision afresh within two months regarding the suitability of the petitioner to the post he was holding.

(3.) THE petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge preferred an LPA bearing No. 2036/2006 against the order of the learned Single Judge which came up for hearing first time before the Division Bench on 19th October, 2006 in which notice to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted was issued returnable for 17th January, 2007 and in the meantime the status quo was directed to be maintained with regard to the services of the petitioner.