University of Delhi vs Delhi University Contract Employees Union & Ors.

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 – 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 put in, benefit of one more mark subject to the ceiling of 8 additional marks be given; (c) The Public Notice inviting applications from the candidates shall specifically state that the advantage in terms of the order passed by this Court would be conferred upon the contract employees so that other candidates are put to adequate notice; (d) All the contract employees shall be entitled to offer their candidature for the ensuing selection in next four weeks and in order to give them sufficient time to prepare, the test shall be undertaken only after three months of the receipt of applications from the candidates – Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit with the modifications as directed will subserve the purpose – Such directions will not only afford chance to the contract employees to participate in the selection process regardless of their age but will also entitle them to some advantage over the other participants.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The contract employees in the present case cannot, therefore, claim the relief of regularization in terms of paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi. The rejection of their petition by the single Judge of the High Court was quite correct and there was no occasion for the Division Bench to interfere in the matter. [Para 11][878-F]

Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1: [2007] 3 SCR 149 – followed. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 1: [2008] 15 SCR 331; State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others (2010) 9 SCC 247; State of Gujarat and others v. PWD Employees Union and others (2013) 12 SCC 417 : [2013] 10 SCR 1091; Nihal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (2013) 14 SCC 656; Sheo Narain Nagar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2018) 13 SCC 432 : [2017] 11 SCR 138; Narendra Kumar Tiwari and

others v. State of Jharkhand and others (2018) 8 SCC

238 : [2018] 9 SCR 412; Pooran Chandra Pandey

(1978) 1 SCC 248 : [1978] 2 SCR 621 – referred to.

2. 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. A separate and exclusive test meant only for the contract employees will not be an answer as that would confine the zone of consideration to contract employees themselves. The modality suggested by the University, on the other hand, will give them adequate chance and benefit to appear in the ensuing selection. [Para 12][878-G-H; 879-A]

3. All the concerned contract employees engaged by the University should be afforded benefits as detailed in paragraphs

6 and 7 of the affidavit dated 09.03.2021 with following modifications: (a) The benefit of age relaxation as contemplated in paragraph 6 of the 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 put in, benefit of one more mark subject to the ceiling of 8 additional marks be given. In other words, if a contract employee was engaged for the first time in the year 2010, he shall be entitled to the benefit of 11 marks, while one engaged since 2003 shall be given 18 marks, as against the appointee of 2011 who will have the advantage of only 10 marks. The contract appointees of 2012 and 2013 will have the advantage of 9 and 8 marks respectively. (c) The Public Notice inviting applications from the candidates shall specifically state that the advantage in terms of the order passed by this Court would be conferred upon the contract employees so that other candidates are put to adequate notice. (d) All the contract employees shall be entitled to offer their candidature for the ensuing selection in next four weeks and in order to give them sufficient time to prepare, the test shall be undertaken only after three months of the receipt of applications from the candidates. [Para 13][879-B-F]

4. These directions are premised on two basic submissions advanced for the University that; (i) the total marks for the test will be 300 marks and thus the maximum advantage which a contract employee will have is of 18 marks which in turn is relatable to advantage of 6% as against other participants in the selection process; (ii) all the contract employees are otherwise entitled and eligible to participate in the selection process. [Para 14][879-G-H; 880-A]

5. Paragraphs 6 & 7 of the affidavit with the modifications as directed will subserve the purpose. Such directions will not only afford chance to the contract employees to participate in the selection process regardless of their age but will also entitle them to some advantage over the other participants. Similarly, those contract employees who have put in more number of years as against the other contract employees, will also have a comparative advantage. [Para 15][880-B]