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. This honourable judgement was passed by Supreme Court of India in the case of University of Delhi v. Delhi University Contract Employees Union & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1007 OF 2021]by The Hon’ble Uday Umesh Lalit.
The appeal was filed by appellant arise out of the final judgment and order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The appeal preferred by University of Delhi arising out of SLP(C) No. 17486 of 2017 was taken as the lead matter. By communication dated 31.08.1999 the University Grants Commission imposed a ban on filling up of non-teaching posts in all institutes/universities and the affiliated colleges. On 12.01.2011 the UGC sanctioned and allowed the University to fill up 255 posts of Junior Assistants while suggesting changes in Recruitment Rules of the University. However, during the period from 2003 to 2013 various appointments were made by the University on contract basis as a result of which about 300 Junior Assistants are presently in the employment of the University on contract basis, most of whom are members of the Union.
The learned council referred the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors, State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari and others and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and other.
The court opinioned that, “the paragraphs 6 & 7 of the affidavit with the modifications as directed hereinabove 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 a greater number of years as against the other contract employees, will also have a comparative advantage.”
The court disposed of the appeal stating, “it must be observed that according to Mr. Santosh Kumar, there are at present 300 Junior Assistants working on contract basis in the University while the number of posts advertised are only 236. Even if it be assumed that all these 236 posts are secured by the contract employees, that would still leave 64 of the contract employees as unsuccessful. It may therefore possibly be said that as against the required posts of 236, the University had engaged contract employees in excess of the required number23 or that there may be further advertisement to fill up the remaining posts.”