- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 31 August 2023
- Bench
- Sanjeev Narula
- Case no.
- LPA 615/2023
Judgment
SANJEEV NARULA, J. AUGUST 31, 2023
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 31.08.2023 % LPA 615/2023 and C.M. Nos. 45014-45016/2023 & 45021/2023 DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNIVERSITY ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Ms. Taniya Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms.Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam & Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for respondent/ GNCTD. versus NEERU KALHER AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shivendra Singh & Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) arises out of judgment dated 21.03.2023, passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6014/2021 (the "Impugned Judgment"), whereby the Writ Petition preferred by the Respondents herein was allowed and consequentially, the Appellant University was directed to renew the service contracts of the Respondents until regular appointments were made to the post of Master Trainers. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the six Respondents were appointed as Master Trainers at the World Class Skill Centre (the "WCSC"), Vivek Vihar on a contractual basis by the Department of Training and Technical Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (the "DTTE"). While each Respondent was appointed on a different date between 2015 to 2018, the fact relevant to the present matter is that all their contracts were extended from time to time, without any break, until 31.03.2021. 3. During the Respondents' employment with the WCSC, vide notification dated 26.05.2020, the Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University Act, 2019 (the "Act") was notified and subsequently, the Appellant University came into existence on 15.08.2020. It is pertinent to note that the DTTE is the parent department which exercises functional and financial control over the WCSCs and the Appellant University. 4. Thereafter, the DTTE vide notification dated 20.01.2021, integrated six existing WCSCs, including the one located in Vivek Vihar, into the Appellant University for all academic and certification purposes. To effectuate this integration, the said notification directed the transfer of all 58 sanctioned posts of the WCSCs, to the Appellant University, on existing terms and conditions (hereinafter, referred to as "Integration Notification"). The integration of WSCSs into the Appellant University essentially amounted only to a change in management as the WSCSs continued to operate in the same premises and the Respondents continued to undertake the same work. 5. On 08.02.2021, a meeting was conducted by the Appellant University wherein all Master Trainers working at the WCSCs, which included the Respondents, were allotted work, and were asked to report to WCSC Dwarka for their duties from 09.02.2021. An order to this effect was also passed by the Appellant University on 08.02.2021. The Respondents promptly complied with this directive and were assured that their contracts would be renewed in a timely manner as the integration was merely procedural. 6. Apprehending non-renewal of their contracts against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Respondents made representation dated 25.03.2021 to the Chief Minister of Delhi, requesting his intervention to ensure renewal of their contracts with the Appellant University/DTTE. In the meantime, the Respondent's contracts with DTTE came to an end on 31.03.2021. The representation dated 25.03.2021, was forwarded to the Appellant University on 07.04.2023 but no action was taken in response to the same. 7. Thereafter, confirming the apprehension of the Respondents, the Appellant University issued advertisement dated 08.06.2021, inviting fresh applications for the contractual position of Master Trainer (the "Advertisement"). 8. Aggrieved by the Advertisement, the Respondents-herein preferred the underlying writ petition seeking to quash the Advertisement on the ground that it arbitrarily sought to replace them despite their el
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.