UNIVERSITY OF DELHI versus DELHI UNIVERSITY CONTRACT EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 3 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 25-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
859
   [2021] 3 S.C.R. 859
859
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
v.
DELHI UNIVERSITY CONTRACT EMPLOYEES UNION
& ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1007 of 2021)
MARCH 25, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Service law: Appointment – Claim for, by contractual
employee – Advertisement published on 06.11.2013 inviting
applications for 255 posts of Junior Assistants in the University –
However, during the period from 2003 to 2013, various contractual
appointments were made by University as a result of which about
300 Junior Assistants were in employment of University –Soon after
the advertisement, Union filed writ petition – A Single Judge of
High Court rejected writ petition relying on decision in Secretary,
State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi – In the recruitment process,
pursuant to the advertisement, the Junior Assistants employed on
contractual basis, also participated – All contractual appointees
were granted age relaxation – However, only 120 regular
appointments could be made by the University out of which 10 were
contractual appointees and members of the Union –The Union filed
an appeal before Division Bench of High Court – During the
pendency of appeal, factual details pertaining to the members of
the Union were placed on record, which show that the earliest
contract employees were appointed in the year 2003 while the last
appointees were of the year 2013 – Division Bench allowed the
appeal and University was directed to hold an appropriate test for
selection in terms of advertisement – Aggrieved University and also
Union filed appeals – By interim order, the direction to hold special
tests was stayed but it was directed that contract employees would
continue to work in the positions held by them on provisional basis
until the next round of selections – The contract employees were
however granted liberty to participate in any selection process held
in future – When these appeals came up before this Court on
22.10.2019, it was noted that even after the selection undertaken
in 2013, there remained regular vacancies – The University was
therefore directed to file an appropriate affidavit indicating the status
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
– In affidavit dated 13.11.2019, University indicated that 124 regular
posts of Junior Assistants were lying vacant – In affidavit dated
09.03.2021 of University, it was stated that a decision was taken
that in order to facilitate contractual employees to participate in
recruitment process, age relaxation as well as certain advantage
for the service rendered as contract employees would be given by
University – Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit was to the effect
that to enable the contractual employees to participate in the
recruitment process, a comprehensive age relaxation with respect
to the upper age limit has been given to the contract employees
working at the University in the recruitment process and in addition,
a maximum of upto 10 extra marks, depending on the number of
years of service of the contract employee, would be given to them
while finalizing the merit – Held: The contract employees in the
present case cannot claim the relief of regularization in terms of
paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi – The rejection of their
petition by Single Judge of the High Court was correct and there
was no occasion for the Division Bench to interfere in the matter –
It is true that, as on the day when the judgment in Umadevi was
delivered by this Court, the contract employees had put in just about
3 to 4 years of service – But, as of now, most of them have completed
more than 10 years of service on contract basis – Though the benefit
of regularization cannot be granted, a window of opportunity must
be given to them to compete with the available talent through public
advertisement – The modality suggested by University will give them
adequate chance and benefit to appear in the ensuing selection –
All the contract employees engaged by the University should be
afforded benefits as detailed in paragraphs 6 and 7 of affidavit
dated 09.03.2021 with following modifications: (a) The benefit of
age relaxation as contemplated in paragraph 6 of affidavit without
any qualification must be extended to all the contract employees;
(b) In modification of paragraph 7 of the affidavit, those employees
who were engaged in the year 2011 be given the benefit of 10 marks
in the ensuing selection process while for every additional year
that a contract employee had

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.