Jagjit Kaur and Ors v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

* + % JAGIEET KAUR & ORS. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 20th September, 2013 ..... Petitioners K Through: Mr. Rishikesh, Advocate. Versus Govr. oF NCT oF DELHI AND oRS. .... Respondents Through: I\dr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for respondent Nos.l to 3. I{r. M.S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKT J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? 1. Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rishikesh, Advocate seeks adjournment on the ground of personal difficulty of illness/accident. I cannot agree with this ground of personal difficulty because the same counsel has regularly argued various cases before me including regular matters. In fact, I find that request for adjournment is possibly less than page I of 7 a t( justified in view of the fact that an identical issue has been decided as per the judgment passed by me on 26.7.2013 in w.P.(C) No.257I/2011 titled as Smt Gurieet Kaur and Ors. Vs. GNCT of Delhi ond Ors. In fact, that case was also through the same chamber as of the present Advocate and the Advocate who appeared while deciding w.P.(C) No.257l/20I1 has also been appearing in this case alternatively to Mr. Rishikesh, Advocate. 2. under:- The judgment in the case of Gurjeet Kaur (supra) reads as "1. There are ten (10) petitioners in the present writ petition. The petitioners were engaged under a scheme to promote Punjabi language by respondent No.4/Punjabi Academy. Respondent No.4 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is an instrumentality of State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India as espondent No.l finances/funds and also controls the respondent No.4. r"/ The petitioners were appointed by the respondent No.4 tb the posts of TGT (Punjabi). The appointment letters of the petitioners admittedly in clear cut terms say that their appointments are on part time basis and their appointment is temporary on ad hoc basis. It was fuither clarified in the appointment letters that the petitioners will not be entitled to seek any appointment under the Government of NCT of Delhi (for short 'GNCTD',). 2. The petitioners pursuant to the order dated 20.6.2008 of the respondent No.1/GNCTD became full time teachers and their salaries were enhanced. The petitioners were thereafter re-deployed against vacantposts in different schools of respondentNo.l. 3. The petitioners by this writ petition claim two reliefs. The first relief is for regularization of their services either by respondent No.4 or by respondent No.I/GNCTD. The second relief which is claimed is on the basis of doctrine of equal pay for equal work, i.e., the petitioners l4/. P. (C) No.4 I 9 6/2 0 I 2 :+ pray that they should be given the same monetary emoluments as being given to TGT teachers in the schools of respondent No.l. 4. Before I proceed further it is necessary at this stage necessary to reproduce the ratio of the judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1. The ratio in Umsdevi's case (supra) is as under: "(I) The questions to be asked before rcgularization are:- (a)(D Was there a sanctioned post (court cannot order creation of posts because finances of the state may go haywire), (ii) is there a vacancy, (iii) are the persons qualified persons and (iv) are the appointments through regular recruitment process of calling all possible persons and which process involves inter-se competition among the candidates (b) A court can condone an inegularity in the appointment procedure only if the irregularity does not go to the root of the matter. (II) For sanctioned posts having vacancies, such posts have to be filled by regular recruitment process of prescribed procedure otherwise, the constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 14,16,309, 315, 320 etc is violated. (m) In case of existence of necessary circumstances the govemment has a right to appoint contract