W.P.(C)--2576/2017. Case: ASHA KUMARI Vs. TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION FORECASTING AND ASSESSMENT COUNCIL (TIFAC) & ANR. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--2576/2017 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 06, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 06.12.2019
+ W.P.(C) 2576/2017 & CM APPL. 11122/2017
ASHA KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Ms. Shweta and Ms. Priya Pande, Advocates
versus
TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION FORECASTING AND ASSESSMENT COUNCIL (TIFAC) & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
J U D G M E N T
A.K. CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
By the instant petition, the petitioner, in effect, seeks issuance writ of Mandamus for being regularized to the post of Hindi typist with respondent-Technology Information Forecasting And Assessment in short, ‘TIFAC’.
2. The facts emerging from the record are that the committee Parliament on Official Language recommended 27 items of work to be in Hindi by TIFAC. At that point of time, there was no Hindi typist TIFAC. It resulted into TIFAC undertaking a process for selection for
W.P.(C.) No.2576/2017 Page 1 of
post of Hindi typist. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner came to be as Hindi typist w.e.f. 18.05.2006. For the purpose, she was communication F No. 13/16/2006/Admn-Tifac, copy whereof, forms the petition, as Annexure P-1. Her such initial employment was on basis for a period of 89 days from the date of joining on a consolidated of Rs.5000/- per month. Her appointment was however extended from to time without any break in service. Last of such extension was vide order F. No. TF/02/007/2008-Estt. Vol-II dated 24.10.2016 till with TIFAC. Before the expiry of such term, when the petitioner had more than 10 years, apprehending non-extension of her service, she approached this Court by the instant petition.
3. TIFAC opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioner, primarily, two counts. Firstly, the recommendation made by it to the Government, which has administrative control over it, was not acceded The other pertinent plea is that the work related to the subject post neither inherent to the functioning of TIFAC nor was such that dispensation would create any impediment in the smooth functioning TIFAC inasmuch as much of TIFAC staff was now trained in Hindi and was doing the job of Hindi typist.
4. Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner adverting to the the judgments of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1806 and Nihal Singh and Others State of Punjab and Others (2013) 14 SCC 65, strenuously contends the petitioner having worked for over ten years, it was a fit case, where, petitioner should have been considered for being regularized to the
W.P.(C.) No.2576/2017 Page 2 of
post. More so, in his submissions, the work being performed by petitioner was of a perennial nature and therefore, the subject post could be dispensed with on the purported temporary arrangements, on TIFAC seeks to oppose the prayer.
5. Mr. Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent, on his part, reliance upon Kumar mayank And Ors. v. Delhi Technological & Anr. 2016 X AD (DELHI) 547 and Saiyed Zegham Murtaza v. Sabha Secretariat 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11268 , contends that petitioner is not entitled to issuance of any Mandamus. In his submissions, the appointment of the petitioner was temporary-being contractual, and, mere passage of time does not invest any legal right in her to regularization to the post, and, for that purpose, creation of post as per ratio of judgment in Nihal Singh’s case (supra), would be unwarranted. his submission, the petitioner does not fulfill any of the four taken note of the learned Single Judge in Kumar Mayank's case (supra) existing sanctioned posts; the vacancies existing in such sanctioned eligibility criteria being fulfilled by the candidates as specified in recruitment rules; and, the competition between candidates on the advertised to fill such vacancies. In his submissions therefore, the was not entitled to any relief.
6. Undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Hindi vide communication dated 18.05.2019. Relevant to the context, it reads, under:-“Kindly refer to your application...
To continue reading
Request your trial