Summary
Delhi University’s contract employees could not claim regularisation under Umadevi’s one-time exception, since even the earliest had only three to four years’ service in April 2006. An exclusive selection test for them would improperly restrict competition. The Court instead directed age relaxation and graded experience marks in the open selection, with notice to other candidates, preparation time, and one further opportunity for unsuccessful contract employees in a future selection.
Issues
- Whether these contract employees qualified for regularisation or a separate selection test.
- What opportunity and experience advantage should be provided in open recruitment.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaThe public-employment equality framework, as explained in Umadevi and Dayanand, required open competition rather than the exclusive test ordered below. (¶ 7-12)
Held
- The earliest contract employees had only three to four years’ service when Umadevi was decided on 10 April 2006; most were engaged later. They did not qualify for its paragraph 53 regularisation exception. Subsequent cases did not justify the Division Bench’s intervention on these facts. (¶ 7-11)
- Their subsequent long service warranted an opportunity to compete, but a separate test exclusively for contract staff would confine consideration to that group. The University’s proposal for age relaxation and experience credit in open selection, as modified, provided an appropriate route. (¶ 12-15)
- Age relaxation was to extend to all concerned contract employees. A 2011 appointee would receive ten marks, with one extra mark for each earlier year up to eighteen marks for a 2003 appointee; 2012 and 2013 appointees would receive nine and eight marks respectively. The public notice had to disclose the advantage to other candidates. (¶ 13(a)-(c))
- Contract employees could submit candidature within four weeks, and the test was to take place only after three months from receipt of applications. These directions rested on a 300-mark test and the employees’ otherwise satisfying participation eligibility; they did not waive substantive qualifications. (¶¶ 13(d), 14)
- Since advertised posts were fewer than contract employees, unsuccessful contract employees were to receive one more chance and the same advantage in a future selection. Appointment or regularisation was not guaranteed. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeals disposed of without costs. Regularisation and an exclusive test refused; open-recruitment benefits directed on the specified terms, including one further opportunity for unsuccessful contract employees.