Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shantanu Shukla, Adv v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS

Judgment

1. These writ petitions emanate out of five judgments passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal1, of which three have been rendered on 30 September 2019.

2. The specifics may be provided thus: Writ Petition No. OA No. Date of impugned judgment 30 September 2019 30 September 2019 30 September 2019 13 March 2021 4 April 2024

3. WP (C) 11693/2019, WP (C) 11694/2019, WP (C) 11695/2019 and WP (C) 7915/2023 are preferred by the original applicants before the Tribunal, whereas WP (C) 8501/2024 is preferred by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi2.

4. The issue in controversy in all these cases is the same. For the sake of convenience, the applicants before the Tribunal in all these 1 “the Tribunal” hereinafter 2 “MCD” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2025 13:49:32 W.P.(C) 11693/2019 and other connected matters cases would collectively be referred to hereinafter as “applicants”.

5. The applicants were all teachers who were appointed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi/South Delhi Municipal Corporation/East Delhi Municipal Corporation/North Delhi Municipal Corporation on various dates between 2003 and 2008, following advertisements issued by the concerned Municipal Corporations and interview, against sanctioned posts. The appointments were, however, contractual in nature, continued from time to time by granting periodical extensions. All the applicants sought regularisation against the posts occupied by them, albeit on contract basis, and founded their claims on the long and uninterrupted service rendered by them. There is no doubt about the fact that the services rendered by the applicants were satisfactory and there has been no serious complaint against any of them regarding their performance at any point of time. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal Impugned orders in WP (C) 11693/2019, WP (C) 11694/2019 and WP (C) 11695/2019

6. The impugned orders in WP (C) 11693/2019, WP (C) 11694/2019 and WP (C) 11695/2019 were all rendered by the Tribunal on 30 September 2019. The applicants in these OAs had applied the concerned Municipal Corporations3 seeking absorption/regularisation of their services, pointing out that they had 3 Collectively referred to, hereinafter, as “MCD”, as all Municipal Corporations now stand merged in the MCD W.P.(C) 11693/2019 and other connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2025 13:49:32 been appointed against duly sanctioned posts and had been continuing satisfactorily for over 10 years without a break. The MCD, however, submitted, before the Tribunal, that the contractual employment of the applicants had been last extended by a period of one month till 31 October 2019, by order dated 30 September 2019. It was further submitted that, against the posts occupied by the applicants in the said three OAs, offers of appointment had already been issued to regularly selected persons on 17 July 2019, and they were to join on or before 15 October 2019.

7. In these circumstances, the Tribunal disposed of the OAs 2482/2019, 2387/2019 and 2483/2019 by identical orders passed on 30 September 2019, para 4 of which read thus: “4. In view of the aforesaid, the present OA is disposed of by directing the respondents that, in case, they are in need of services of contractual teachers, the applicants shall not be replaced by new set of contractual teachers and if, after appointing the persons selected on regular basis, there still remain some unfilled vacancies and the respondents are in need of the services of contractual teachers, the applicants shall be given preference, over the juniors and freshers.” Impugned order dated 13 March 2021 passed in OA 3540/2019

8. Suresh Chand Sharma was the lone applicant in this OA. His claim was identical to the claim of the petitioners in WP (C) 11693/2019, WP (C) 11694/2019 and WP (C) 11695/2019. The Tribunal, accordingly, disposed of OA 3540/2019, by merely following its order dated 30 September 2019 supra in OA 2482/2019. W.P.(C) 11693/2019 and other connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2025 13:49:32 Impugned order dated 4 April 2024 passed in OA 2525/2023

9. The claim of Anita Kumari, the lone applicant in this OA was identical to the claim of the petitioners in WP (C) 11693/2019, WP (C) 11694/2019 and WP (C) 11695/2019. She, too, sought regularisation as Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the MCD, by dint of her long and uninterrupted service, following contractual appointment against a sanctioned post, after interview. By the time when the matter was decided by the Tribunal, the applicant Anita Kumari had already rendered service for the MCD for over 21 years, having been contractually appointed in 2003.

10. Before the Tribunal, the MCD sought to contend that the appointment of the applicant Anita Kumari was under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan4, which was a specific scheme under which teachers were appointed on contract for 10 months a year, excluding summer vacations. It was submitted that, owing to financial stringency being faced by the MCD, no further appointments were being made. As against this, the applicant Anita Kumari submitted that her appointment was by the MCD and had continued without interruption since 11 September 2003 against a regular post. It was submitted that the SSA had come into existence only in 2014 and that, therefore, it was erroneous on the part of the MCD to contend that the applicant had been appointed against the SSA. The SSA, it was further submitted, was managed by the MCD and funded from the 4 “SSA” hereinafter W.P.(C) 11693/2019 and other connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2025 13:49:32 Consolidated Fund of India.

11. Addressing the rival submissions, the Tribunal held that the public notice/advertisement, against which the applicant Anita Kumari had applied and following which she had been interviewed and selected, was issued by the MCD. It made no reference to the appointment being against a particular project or in a particular society. The orders extending the applicant’s appointment, too, did not state that it was being done in a society. Clearly, the appointment was by the Education Department of the MCD and had continued since 2003 by repeated orders of extension. The applicant, who was 33 years of age when she was appointed as a Primary Teacher, was 54 years of age by the time the OA was filed before the Tribunal. She had, therefore, in the process, been rendered over-age for appointment to any other government post. She was selected by a transparent, open and fair selection process, as per her merit. Technical/artificial breaks could not be regarded as interrupting the flow of service rendered by the applicant. The appointment of the applicant could not, therefore, be termed as “illegal” within the meaning of the expression as employed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment in State of Karnataka v Uma Devi5. Even if, after a particular point of time, the funds from which the applicant was paid were arranged from the funds allocated to the SSA, that did not detract from the relationship of employer and employee subsisting between the MCD and the applicants. For this finding, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nihal Singh v State of Punjab6.