W.P.(C)--9371/2014. Case: MEENU AND ORS. Vs. INTEGRATED DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY AND ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--9371/2014 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | January 28, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9371/2014 & conn. matters % 28th January, 2015
-
W.P.(C) No.9371/2014 and C.M. No.21189/2014
MEENU AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Ms.
Aastha Chopra, Advocate. versus
INTEGRATED DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY AND ORS.
.... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4.
-
W.P.(C) No.9374/2014 and C.M. No.21193/2014
ANITA NEGI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Ms.
Aastha Chopra, Advocate. versus
INTEGRATED DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY AND ORS.
.... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4.
W.P.(C) No. 9371/2014 & conn. matters Page 1 of 24
-
W.P.(C) No.9375/2014 and C.M. No.21194/2014
SUMIT KAUSHIK AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Ms.
Aastha Chopra, Advocate. versus
INTEGRATED DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY AND ORS.
.... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4.
-
W.P.(C) No.9376/2014 and C.M. No.21195/2014
TAHREEM PARVEEN AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Ms.
Aastha Chopra, Advocate. versus
INTEGRATED DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY AND ORS.
.... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4.
-
W.P.(C) No.9377/2014 and C.M. No.21196/2014
DR. SHABNAM SIDDIQUI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Ms.
Aastha Chopra, Advocate. versus
INTEGRATED DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY AND ORS.
.... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
W.P.(C) No. 9371/2014 & conn. matters Page 2 of 24
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4.
-
W.P.(C) No.9369/2014 and C.M. No.21187/2014
YOGESH KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Ms.
Aastha Chopra, Advocate. versus
INTEGRATED DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY AND ORS.
.... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4.
-
W.P.(C) No.9370/2014 and C.M. No.21188/2014
SWETA JAIN AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Ms.
Aastha Chopra, Advocate. versus
INTEGRATED DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY AND ORS.
.... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4.
-
W.P.(C) No.9372/2014 and C.M. No.21190/2014
ABHISHEK BHARTI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Ms.
Aastha Chopra, Advocate. versus
W.P.(C) No. 9371/2014 & conn. matters Page 3 of 24
INTEGRATED DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY AND ORS.
.... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4.
-
W.P.(C) No.9373/2014 and C.M. No.21192/2014 SURENDER KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Ms.
Aastha Chopra, Advocate. versus
INTEGRATED DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY AND ORS.
.... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
-
All the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of by common judgment as issues involved in these cases are the same. For sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts of W.P.(C) No.9371/2014.
-
At the outset, I would like to state that I fail to understand in spite of the binding ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of
W.P.(C) No. 9371/2014 & conn. matters Page 4 of 24
Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 certain litigants file writ petitions effectively to directions which will amount to flouting the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Umadevi & Ors. (supra). The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi & Ors.(supra) has specifically laid down the ratio that the appointments which have to be made by government or any authority which is a State under Article 12 of Constitution of India can only be if four aspects are satisfied viz firstly must exist sanctioned posts, secondly there must exist vacancies sanctioned posts, thirdly the appointments must be by means of competition after insertion of advertisement in the newspaper and/or calling candidates from employment exchange and lastly/fourthly persons employed have to be qualified in terms of the recruitment rules. The following is the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi & Ors. (supra) :-
“(I) The questions to be asked before regularization are:-
(a)(i) 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
W.P.(C) No. 9371/2014 & conn. matters Page 5 of 24
(b) A court can condone an irregularity 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.
(III) In case of existence of necessary circumstances the government has a right to appoint contract employees or casual labour or employees for a project, but, such persons form a class in themselves and they cannot claim equality(except possibly for equal pay for equal work) with regular employees who form a separate class. Such temporary employees cannot claim legitimate expectation of absorption/regularization as they knew when they were appointed that they were temporary inasmuch as the government did not give and nor could have given an assurance of regularization without the regular recruitment process being followed. Such irregularly appointed persons cannot claim to be regularized alleging violation of Article 21. Also the equity in favour of the millions who await public employment through the regular recruitment process outweighs the equity in favour of the limited number of irregularly appointed persons who claim regularization.
(IV) Once there are vacancies in sanctioned posts such vacancies cannot be filled in except without regular recruitment process, and thus neither the court nor the executive can frame a scheme to absorb or regularize persons appointed to such posts without following the regular recruitment process.
(V) At the instance of persons irregularly appointed the process of regular recruitment shall not be stopped. Courts should not pass interim orders to continue employment of such
W.P.(C) No. 9371/2014 & conn. matters Page 6 of 24
irregularly appointed persons because the same will result in stoppage of recruitment through regular appointment procedure. (VI) If there are sanctioned posts with vacancies, and qualified persons were appointed without a regular recruitment process, then, such persons who when the judgment of Uma Devi is passed have worked for over 10 years without court orders, such persons be regularized under schemes to be framed by the concerned organization.
(VII) The aforesaid law which applies to the Union and the States will also apply to all instrumentalities of the State governed by Article 12 of the Constitution”.
-
There are three exceptions to the ratio of the judgment in case of Umadevi & Ors. (supra). The first exception is that as per para of the judgment in the case of Umadevi...
To continue reading
Request your trial